New Lds.org Article On Dna And The Book Of Mormon

[Danzo]

Yes, no nation became aware of this land until the 1600's or so. But, as the warning states, people came from time to time to molest them and eventually they did loose their inheritance. 

So the Lamanites don't count as a "nation"?

[Freedom]

So the Lamanites don't count as a "nation"?

It is difficult to become aware of a land upon which you already live. The nation of Israel, from which Laman came, was not made aware of the Americas. Individuals or small groups came here, but no foreign nations became aware of it. 

[TrespassersW]

Growing up when one could be looked upon with suspicion for stating they believed Asians crossed the land bridge into the Americas, I was always taught this scripture referred to immigrants post 1492.

Sure. You're free to interpret it that way if you like. And reconcile that with current scientific findings (or not) in whatever way you choose. But the text doesn't actually _say_ that. So it isn't incumbent on the rest of us to share that assumption.

 

What Lehi actually says, quite clearly to my mind, is that he allows for the possibility of other migrations, which completely contradicts the notion that his comments two sentences later must exclude any possibility such migrations. In fact, when he does discuss later migrations (in verses 10 and 11), he indicates that the coming of these migrations marks the end of the Lord's protection, and thus, the end of the promise. In my mind that undermines your interpretation somewhat.

[erdoch]

Southerton:

 

"Twice in the last 3 years scientists have discovered hidden ancestors in our autosomal DNA. They discovered that people in non-African populations have a small percentage (1-4%) of Neanderthal DNA in their genome. Then more recently it was discovered that Melanesians and Australian Aboriginals carry a small proportion of DNA from Denisovans, a related hominid species that lived in Asia. These small proportions of “foreign” DNA entered our lineage 30-40 thousand years ago. If Middle Eastern DNA entered Native American populations in the last 3 thousand years there is no reason to believe that their Middle Eastern markers would disappear completely."

 

Southerton is an idiot. He is creating a strawman argument. Claiming the correct argument that DNA cannot be used to establish the genetic make up of an ancient people is not the same as claiming that DNA cannot be used to prove your parenthood. No geneticist would claim that you could drop 30 people into a population of 1 million and be certain to find their DNA 3,000 years later. 

 

Exactly! Southerton's above argument only makes sense if Lehi's descendants were dominant in numbers among any other people they were with. But while this may be assumed from the seemingly absent descriptions of others in the land Sorensen and others have pointed out several hints in the Book of Mormon that there WERE indeed others. All the DNA evidence does is refute the "big scale" models, of Lehi's descendants dominating Native American populations. But, while that may have been how most members and church leaders read the Book of Mormon for most of church history, it's not in my mind a position that agrees with the Book of Mormon itself. While Lehi's descendants were apparently politically and ideologically successful (Nephi became king; the separate people were called Nephites and Lamanites, etc.), that doesn't mean they were larger in numbers than the others they encountered, or assimilated with. 

[omni]

Did they explain why it would refer to post 1492?

Because they believed all of the inhabitants of the Americas prior to 1492 were the descendents of those peoples mentioned in the BoM. Those who came after were brought here by the hand of God to found a righteous nation.

[omni]

Sure. You're free to interpret it that way if you like. And reconcile that with current scientific findings (or not) in whatever way you choose. But the text doesn't actually _say_ that. So it isn't incumbent on the rest of us to share that assumption.

What Lehi actually says, quite clearly to my mind, is that he allows for the possibility of other migrations, which completely contradicts the notion that his comments two sentences later must exclude any possibility such migrations. In fact, when he does discuss later migrations (in verses 10 and 11), he indicates that the coming of these migrations marks the end of the Lord's protection, and thus, the end of the promise. In my mind that undermines your interpretation somewhat.

Just to be clear, this wasn't my interpretation, but the interpretation of most of the members I had spoken to on the subject.

[cinepro]

But that isn't all Lehi had to say about it. We shouldn't omit verse 5 (emphasis mine):

 

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.

 

First of all, I'm not at all convinced that Lehi is necessarily talking about the entire continent.  Second, Lehi explicitly allows for the presence of others who were brought from other countries, so long as they were brought by the hand of the Lord. Yes, he focuses on his seed, as that is the group he cares about, but I don't see how one could possibly interpret these verses as some sort of absolute exclusion of any other migrations. Lehi himself explicitly says they are not.

 

Of course Lehi wasn't excluding other inspired migrations.  The Book of Mormon itself tells of two others, so these must be accounted for.

 

The most interesting thing to me about modern Book of Mormon apologetics is how they often defend the Book of Mormon by making it irrelevant.  In the end, they might succeed in convincing everyone that it can be "true", but at the cost of people wondering "Who cares?" 

 

In other words, the idea that the Jaredites, Lehites and Mulekites found a deserted land and populated it, with their descendents falling into apostacy (and becoming dark-skinned) only to be discovered by Christopher Columbus a few centuries later might not make much sense from an anthropological standpoint, but it sure made the Book of Mormon monumentally important to readers 100+ years ago.  It answered the question of where the Native Americans came from, who their ancestors were, and what their destiny would be.  Now, the first two questions have been well answered by non-Book of Mormon sources and so called "apologetics" is more interested in reducing the claims of the Book of Mormon to fit the bounds set by non-Mormon sources.  It might be safer (and "truer"), but it's also much less interesting and inspiring.

[Storm Rider]

Certainly is a lot there. Rare to see the Church stray off into areas way beyond its expertise, such as population genetics. 

 

The Church is an organization of individuals. Are you proposing that the organization has no individuals with this expertise?  Got it; those stupid Mormons are at it again. I am so glad that we can look exclusively to the enlightened non-Mormons for all scholarship. Bobby, you are better than that. 

[Tiki]

Of course Lehi wasn't excluding other inspired migrations. The Book of Mormon itself tells of two others, so these must be accounted for.

The most interesting thing to me about modern Book of Mormon apologetics is how they often defend the Book of Mormon by making it irrelevant. In the end, they might succeed in convincing everyone that it can be "true", but at the cost of people wondering "Who cares?"

In other words, the idea that the Jaredites, Lehites and Mulekites found a deserted land and populated it, with their descendents falling into apostacy (and becoming dark-skinned) only to be discovered by Christopher Columbus a few centuries later might not make much sense from an anthropological standpoint, but it sure made the Book of Mormon monumentally important to readers 100+ years ago. It answered the question of where the Native Americans came from, who their ancestors were, and what their destiny would be. Now, the first two questions have been well answered by non-Book of Mormon sources and so called "apologetics" is more interested in reducing the claims of the Book of Mormon to fit the bounds set by non-Mormon sources. It might be safer (and "truer"), but it's also much less interesting and inspiring.

Exactly! Exactly what the LDS Mesoamerica Apologists have done: letting the critics of The Book of Mormon set the agenda. Oh great and spacious building, accept of us our sacrifice to thee!

"If young Joseph took his ideas for the Book of Mormon from his neighbors and their cultural milieu, as many critics maintain, we would expect him..."

"If we were to suppose, with many of Smith's critics, that he somehow wrote the Book of Mormon out of his own mind and knowledge, ..."

"Let us allow for a moment the critics' argument that Joseph created the Book of Mormon by himself."

Yep, criticism that Joseph Smith wrote The Book of Mormon based on his knowledge of American History and on where Smith grew up, certainly places it all in Mesoamerica - all to counter the critics.

All quotes above by Dr. John L. Sorenson who has allowed the critics to set the agenda thus forcing LDS Mesoamerica apologists, past and present, to claim it all occurred in a limited Mesoamerica area, to counter said critics of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Then when the DNA issue came up about native inhabitants of Mesoamerica, then we have excuses by these same LDS Apologists, excuses which run counter to the Book of Mormon, claiming Others were among them, all based on a (false) location in Mesoamerica, again, set in that location because of critics of Joseph Smith.

Edited February 3, 2014 by Tiki

[Danzo]

Because they believed all of the inhabitants of the Americas prior to 1492 were the descendents of those peoples mentioned in the BoM. Those who came after were brought here by the hand of God to found a righteous nation.

 sounds pretty circular to me.

[erdoch]

All quotes above by Dr. John L. Sorenson who has allowed the critics to set the agenda thus forcing LDS Mesoamerica apologists, past and present, to claim it all occurred in a limited Mesoamerica area, to counter said critics of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Then when the DNA issue came up about native inhabitants of Mesoamerica, then we have excuses by these same LDS Apologists, excuses which run counter to the Book of Mormon, claiming Others were among them, all based on a (false) location in Mesoamerica, again, set in that location because of critics of Joseph Smith.

 

Obviously there's a disconnect between those (both LDS members and critics) who value traditional Mormon interpretations over and above what the Book of Mormon itself indicates. Yes, it's true that Church members and leaders for most of LDS history assumed a wider continental setting for the Book of Mormon - and that the Lamanites were considered the "principal ancestors of the American Indians" - but that's not what a careful reading of the text itself shows (limited geography, population figures unexplainable unless there were others in the land, etc.). Of course I can see how critics who assume that Joseph Smith made up the whole story would explain those elements away as sloppy history (he got the population figures and geographical distances wrong because he didn't know better how to write more realistic fiction). But don't make the mistake of assuming that just because members and church leaders have assumed certain things about Book of Mormon people that those things are defended by the BM itself.

[Helen47]

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

 9 Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a ^apromise, that ^binasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall ^cprosper 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 ^dkeep 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 ^einheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever.

[rodheadlee]

  Helen 47, What about verse 6? 

 

 6 Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall ^anone come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord.

[Kenngo1969]

  Helen 47, What about verse 6? 

 

 6 Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall ^anone come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord.

Shhhh!  She's trying to cherry pick from the text, Brother Rod!  You're not making it any easier for her!

[Kevin Christensen]

8 

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

 9 Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a ^apromise, that ^binasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall ^cprosper 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 ^dkeep 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 ^einheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever.

Contextualizing is always more enlightening than proof-texting. I wrote this back in 1995.

I

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1436&index=8

 

Who and where are the other nations? In An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, Sorenson wrote that "Most Latter-day Saint readers have supposed that the "other nations' were the European "Gentiles' (1 Nephi 13:1-3) who overran the land after Columbus's discovery, but does it make sense that the fate prophesied by Lehi would be delayed until 1,100 years after Cumorah?"65

Lehi's promise that his children would possess the land unmolested was conditional on their keeping the commandments (2 Nephi 1:9). The next verses say that "when . . . they shall dwindle in unbelief" (not "long afterwards," but "when"), the Lord "will bring other nations . . . and he will take away from them the lands of their possessions, and he will cause them to be scattered and smitten. Yea, as one generation passeth to another, there shall be bloodsheds" (2 Nephi 1:10-12).

Second Nephi 5:2-5 reports that soon after the death of Lehi—the passing of a generation—Nephi's brothers plotted against his own life. Nephi and those he called "his people" fled the land. Despite the report that those who initially left "were those who believed" in God (2 Nephi 5:6), such passages as 2 Nephi 32:7 and 2 Nephi 33:1-3 suggest strongly that Nephi's people had problems of their own. For example, Jacob reports on the necessity for "diligent" labor among them on the part of the prophets (Jacob 1:7) even before Jacob 2:15 describes the beginning of extreme tendencies. Prior to the departure of Nephi's people, the Lamanites had already acted in a role as "a scourge to [Nephi's people], to stir them up in remembrance of me" (2 Nephi 5:25). Although neither Nephi nor Jacob provides details, Jacob 1:10 describes Nephi as having "wielded the sword of Laban" in defense of his people. Thus we have no record of the conditions for blessing being fully kept, and significant information suggesting that the covenant curse was in effect almost from the time of the death of Lehi. That is, immediately after the death of Lehi (the passing of that generation), we see the loss of lands and scattering (2 Nephi 5:5), and smiting and bloodsheds (2 Nephi 5:25, 34, Jacob 1:10). What about the "other nations"? Alerted by the work of Sorenson and others, we have only to look with eyes that see.

Other than to assert that the Jaredites became extinct (pp. 261, 264), Kunich has never dealt with Nibley's arguments in favor of Jaredite survivors.66

What does the Book of Mormon mean by "destroyed"? The word is to be taken, as are so many other key words in the book, in its primary and original sense: "To unbuild; to separate violently into its constituent parts; to break up the structure." To destroy is to wreck the structure, not to annihilate the parts.67

Consider Kunich's requirement that the Lehites win "total domination over a host of people" (p. 262). Actually, all that plausibility requires is a population influx over time sufficient to contribute to population growth.

Kunich calls for a detailed account of the "discovery and absorption of the natives" (p. 262). A key example of Kunich's limited imagination and careless reading comes in the phrase "If the Nephite encounter [actually, it was a Mulekite encounter, see Omni 1:21] with a single Jaredite survivor, Coriantumr, was sufficiently important to warrant inclusion in the sacred record . . ." (p. 264, emphasis added). Perhaps the Nephite record keepers found Coriantumr sufficiently important both because he was royalty and because he was mentioned on an engraved stone that they obtained from Zarahemla's people (Omni 1:21), and on the twenty-four plates (Ether 12-15). The Nephite record keepers found Zarahemla sufficiently important because he was descended from Zedekiah, another royal line mentioned in relation to prophecy on their own sacred records (Omni 1:14). Sorenson's article gathers considerable evidence that others were around, not all of them royalty and connected with individuals named in the scriptures, and therefore not "sufficiently important" for detailed discussion with respect to genre and narrator priorities (1 Nephi 19:6).

Add to Sorenson's recent work the following observations:

Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me [Lehi], and to my children forever, and also all those who should be led out of other countries. (2 Nephi 1:5)

Notice that from the start, possession of the promised land is not just conditional, as we have seen, but also nonexclusive. Note also that there is no requirement that the "other countries" be located in the Old World.

Before explaining about the covenant for the land, Lehi reminds his children that, besides themselves, the land contains "all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord" (2 Nephi 1:5). This remark comes before any reported contact with the Mulekites or the several indications of Jaredite remnants. Why does Lehi make this point about others being led to the land? He very likely knew about them. Nephi's vision of the promised land, granted before the ocean voyage, may refer to these others:

And it came to pass that the angel said unto me: Look, and behold thy seed, and also the seed of thy brethren. And I looked and beheld the land of promise; and I beheld multitudes of people, even as it were in number as many as the sands of the sea. (1 Nephi 12:1)

Reading this passage as describing non-Lehite multitudes existing in the New World before the voyage makes Lehi's remarks about "other nations" (2 Nephi 1:8, 11) in relation to the covenant curse more meaningful. Lehi taught that a law cannot function without an attached punishment (2 Nephi 2:13), and if the "other nations" referred to in the promised land covenant would not arrive until Columbus's voyage, how would the covenant curse have any immediate significance? It makes sense to suppose that from the beginning Lehi knows that his people are not alone, and he wants his sons to be sobered by the fact. An immediate expectation of other nations on the part of Nephi and Lehi, possibly even interaction with small groups of natives early on (who could signify other nations without representing such), makes the whole story more consistent and meaningful.

I, Nephi, did take my family, and also Zoram and his family, and Sam, mine elder brother and his family, and Jacob and Joseph, my younger brethren, and also my sisters, and all those who would go with me. (2 Nephi 5:6; cf. 5:14)

Again, the passage can easily be understood to include native populations, friendly to the new arrivals. Because the focus of the record is deliberately exclusionary, we need to avoid setting unreasonable conditions when we confront the ambiguity inherent in references to "others" at the start of the Lehite experience in the New World.

And all those who were with me did take upon them to call themselves the people of Nephi. . . .

And if my people desire to know the more particular part of the history of my people, they must search mine other plates. (2 Nephi 5:9, 33)

I see plausible indications for mixing populations from the very beginning of the Lehite migration. Kunich's insistence on a Robinson Crusoe level of detail belongs to another genre of writing. This next passage makes more sense if we assume native populations with different cultural backgrounds.

Many of my people . . . know not concerning the manner of prophesying among the Jews.

For I, Nephi have not taught them many things concerning the manner of the Jews. (2 Nephi 25:1-2)

Sam, Zoram, Jacob, Joseph, their families, and several of the women mentioned in 2 Nephi 5:6 certainly had a predominance of experience in Jewish culture, as well as belief in and personal experience with the revelations given by Lehi and Nephi, which came in the Jewish modes. Nephi says that he has "not taught [his] children after the manner of the Jews" (verse 6), but that exclusion to his children does not restrict the implications in verse 1, which clearly refers to cultural ignorance among "many" of his people. Notice that Nephi emphasizes that he has "made mention to my children [not necessarily all his people] concerning the judgments of God . . . according to all which Isaiah hath spoken." We may have different levels of instruction. The preexistence of native populations with alternative cultural backgrounds seems to be a reasonable way to account for an ignorance of the manner of Jewish prophecy, other Jewish manners, skepticism about the gospel, and a reluctance to fully embrace Nephi's teachings. Hutchinson protests Sorenson's "adoptionist" theology (p. 11), which is necessary to reconcile some traditional understandings of the extent of promised blessings among indigenous New World peoples, but such a notion is scriptural.

As many of the Gentiles as will repent are the covenant people of the Lord. (2 Nephi 30:2)

Kunich protests that if these others were around that "Certainly . . . their religious conversion . . . [and] the religion centered nature of Nephite society" (p. 263) requires that the Book of Mormon provide an account of a mass conversion. But "Nephite" society often is only a simplified term for dealing with a complex social group, not just one extended family of palefaces that attend the same church.68 And far from securing a "mass conversion," Nephi very early refers to his "people" as being "stiffnecked" (2 Nephi 25:28), and mourns the "unbelief, and the wickedness, and the ignorance, and the stiffneckedness of men" (2 Nephi 32:7). Such a complaint makes more sense if the people involved included locals who resisted the kind of mass conversion that Kunich views as an implausible necessity.

Since I wrote this, Brant Gardner and Matt Roper added much more.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited February 3, 2014 by Kevin Christensen

[TrespassersW]

Of course Lehi wasn't excluding other inspired migrations.  The Book of Mormon itself tells of two others, so these must be accounted for.

It sounded to me like this was a critical point of Mr. Southerton's criticism, so I felt it was important to point it out.

 

 

The most interesting thing to me about modern Book of Mormon apologetics is how they often defend the Book of Mormon by making it irrelevant.  In the end, they might succeed in convincing everyone that it can be "true", but at the cost of people wondering "Who cares?" 

Here I have to disagree. The church has subtitled the book "Another Testament of Jesus Christ," -- not "A History of the Americas." The significance of the book is unchanged whether it takes place on a local or continental scale. The importance is that the carpenter from Nazareth appeared in a heavenly manifestation to people half a world away from Jerusalem and announced Himself as the Messiah. If the Book of Mormon is historical, no matter how local its geography, then it is of monumental importance because it inseparably establishes that Jesus is the Christ and that Joseph Smith was a prophet.

 

I understand that people interpreted it differently years ago and that may have lent it some significance that it never actually claimed for itself. But if they were in error to so, then isn't it a good thing that we would reject that thinking now? We don't disregard truth just because the error would have been cooler.

[Hamilton Porter]

Certainly is a lot there. Rare to see the Church stray off into areas way beyond its expertise, such as population genetics. 

 

Ugo Perego wrote that piece, with the Church's imprimatur. That's just an updated version of his FARMS article.

[Calm]

the carpenter from Nazareth .

He may have been a stonemason, btw (I believe the Greek word means "builder" but doesn't specify what type).

[Helen47]

Shhhh!  She's trying to cherry pick from the text, Brother Rod!  You're not making it any easier for her!

  What did the Lord have to do with the arrivals 40000 years ago? The crossing was available, they wanted new areas and went. "none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord" Now do some stretching of the exegesis to make it fit the data. The mind boggles   

[Helen47]

I feel somewhat sad for you Mormons. You have to massage and bend a text to save yourselves and the BOM. How did Nephi and co communicate with these "others" in order to build a temple like unto Solomon? Just looking at my copy of Robert's study. and the language diversity among American indians.

[Wiki Wonka]

 I'll be interested to see what Southerton, et al responds with in substance.  I'm sure they will argue that many church leaders, including Joseph, believed and taught that all native americans descended from Lehi's group.  But if that's the best they can do, I'll consider the issue closed. 

 

Actually, Southerton responded to that exact question on RFM on July 5, 2008:

 

Simon Southerton said: "They [apologists] also set up the straw man that I am arguing that according to the Book of Mormon all American Indians are descended from Hebrews. I have never claimed this. The vanishing geography theory is utter desperation."

 

A few months later on September 6, 2008 he stated that we didn't disagree about DNA, but rather theology:

 

Simon Southerton said: "In case anyone from FAIR is unclear I will repeat what I wrote four years ago…“IF A SMALL GROUP OF ISRAELITES ENTERED SUCH A MASSIVE NATIVE POPULATION (SEVERAL MILLIONS) IT WOULD BE VERY, VERY HARD TO DETECT THEIR GENES.” Now that FAIR has finally conceded that American Indian DNA is essentially all derived from Asia, I also agree with them that the debate should be about the theology."

 

The Church essay says "The evidence assembled to date suggests that the majority of Native Americans carry largely Asian DNA," so I guess they agree on at least that point. In fact, Southerton, the Church and apologists all appear to agree on that point.

[juliann]

 

 

In other words, the idea that the Jaredites, Lehites and Mulekites found a deserted land and populated it, with their descendents falling into apostacy (and becoming dark-skinned) only to be discovered by Christopher Columbus a few centuries later might not make much sense from an anthropological standpoint, but it sure made the Book of Mormon monumentally important to readers 100+ years ago.  It answered the question of where the Native Americans came from, who their ancestors were, and what their destiny would be.  Now, the first two questions have been well answered by non-Book of Mormon sources and so called "apologetics" is more interested in reducing the claims of the Book of Mormon to fit the bounds set by non-Mormon sources.  It might be safer (and "truer"), but it's also much less interesting and inspiring.

The apologetics I am acquainted with is more interested in "reducing the claims of the Book of Mormon" to what is actually in the BOM.  Something that the Southertons of the world are unwilling or unable to address.   And that includes dealing with the BOM as if it is what it actually claims to be...an ancient document that must be evaluated with the same tools those non-Mormon sources are using for ancient documents.  So I'm calling foul on your assessment. 

[Freedom]

I feel somewhat sad for you Mormons. You have to massage and bend a text to save yourselves and the BOM. How did Nephi and co communicate with these "others" in order to build a temple like unto Solomon? Just looking at my copy of Robert's study. and the language diversity among American indians.

You need to review the council 'fools rush in where angels fear to tread'. I am afraid you just rushed in. How foolish of you. 

[TrespassersW]

  What did the Lord have to do with the arrivals 40000 years ago? The crossing was available, they wanted new areas and went. "none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord" Now do some stretching of the exegesis to make it fit the data. The mind boggles   

[TrespassersW]

I feel somewhat sad for you Mormons. You have to massage and bend a text to save yourselves and the BOM. How did Nephi and co communicate with these "others" in order to build a temple like unto Solomon? Just looking at my copy of Robert's study. and the language diversity among American indians.