No Mention Of "lamanites" In New Dna Essay?

[Robert F. Smith]

Given gene flow, the Lehites' genetic material would have spread to most populations in the Americas a while back. If one defines a Lamanite as a descendant of Lehi, then it's likely most aboriginal americans could be considered Lamanites.

A reductio ad absurdum, Robert, if you will allow me:

 

Does that mean that the Maya genes have spread to all parts of the Americas?  Does that mean that most aboriginal Americans could be considered Mayan.

[Palerider]

You left out the Jaredites, who had a great civilization somewhere in the Americas for thousands of years.  Some people even identify them with the Olmec.

 

The problem of how to read such a text also comes up when reading and interpreting the Bible.  Professional biblical scholars tend to come up with readings not apparent at all to the lay readers, even when not basing their conclusions on archeology or documents from neighboring cultures.  Grant Hardy and Brant Gardner seem similarly able to tease out far more information of significance from the Book of Mormon text than your average Joe Mormon.

 

Right, right.....

 

So what happened to all the simplicity and plainness that was supposed to be one of the purposes of the BofM? I would think that a layman's reading would/should carry just as much weight as a professional text interpreter. 

 

Pretty sad when we have to have scriptural engineers "teasing" us with hidden information like the gnostics. 

 

Wish I had gone to school like all those really cool smart guys. Oh that's right I did go to school.

 

I just didn't think I would have to go in order to be saved........

[MichelleD]

Robert,

Could you remind us what all of that Mormon supporting science is again?

I'd love to see this list too, Robert.

[Robert F. Smith]

Hey Robertolini,

 

Since Jews are a part of the house of Israel (as the church claims "Lamanites" to be), I'm assuming (and I think there are genetic markers for semitic branches of ancestory IIRC) one could test for those semitic markers that would definitely be different than mongolian asian which is where the majority of Native Americans show their descent.

 

The real problem here as I see it is the huge amount of backpeddling the church has had to do in order to make their present theory work.

 

One literally (once again, as with priesthood ban, plural marrriage,etc.) has to discard all of the previous teachings of prophets (after all they're only human) that have already been quoted here regarding the singular Lamanite/Nephite colonization of the Americas and do a one-and-a-half intellectual loopdi-loop in suddenly seeing the Nephite and Lamanite populations as sooooo itybity that we can hardly even tell they were ever here. Aside from all those temples they built in Central and South America.

 

While at the same time we have to now believe (as science shows) that there were tons of people here when Lehi arrived, so much so, that no one in the BofM even thought to mention running into them.

 

Interesting that there is quite the discourse on the discovery of the people of Zarahemla by Mosiah, but no mention whatsoever of the discovery of a huge population of Native Americans already possessing the land.

 

Makes it really tough to believe you know? Really tough..........   

I don't see anything new in “Book of Mormon and DNA Studies,” 2014, online at https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies , and I don't see any backpeddling there by that strange behemoth called "the Church."   There are a limited number of people who might have authored it.  It is pretty basic, and does address an issue which continues in the news.

 

I am a good deal more sanguine about the possibility of finding actual Semitic markers, and your Lemba example is a reasonable one.

 

As to believability.  I have no problem with a very small group of migrants remaining quite solitary, and later finding another group quite by accident.  That there may have been an earlier culture with a very large population, which then imploded into self-destructive war and leaving vast areas unpopulated (Jaredites - Olmec) accords with actual history, later cultures knowing essentially nothing about the earlier culture.

 

I also think that reading between the lines (as Sorenson does it) may be justified.  The archeological sequence in Mesoamerica simply accords too well with the Book of Mormon sequence, both in character and in chronology.  That tells us where and what to look for in the way of ancient DNA (in skeletal remains in prime Book of Mormon country), so that all that talk about genetic drift and recombinant DNA becomes irrelevant.  Indeed, that sort of analysis is already going on in research by non-Mormons for more generic reasons.

  ,

[deli_llama]

This might be late to the discussion, never the less: "Before the Dawn" by Nicholas Wade. While not exactly pertaining to the thread of this discussion, it does give a great over view of a lot of the genetic science (research and study) that is mentioned in the article. It also outlines the human migration the article talks about in a lot more detail. I will just toss this out also, just set aside any thoughts you have about evolution or the lack there of, I find this is a hard book to recommend to LDS family and friends. At the mention of evolution there is generally a shutting down and disinterest.

[Robert F. Smith]

Right, right.....

 

So what happened to all the simplicity and plainness that was supposed to be one of the purposes of the BofM? I would think that a layman's reading would/should carry just as much weight as a professional text interpreter.

The simplicity and plainness of the Gospel is still there and easily understood, but there is a good deal of alien historical and cultural data which requires more than just surface impressions of the text.  After all, there is a crowd which suggests repeatedly that that data is a fraud.

 

Pretty sad when we have to have scriptural engineers "teasing" us with hidden information like the gnostics.

You're not being evenhanded.

Evangelicals have often made the same complaint about biblical scholarship.  Yet there are now plenty of evangelical scholars with PhDs, the underlying assumption being that reading the original text in Greek and Hebrew and knowing about archeology is to show basic respect to the word of God, while still preserving notions of sola scriptura.  I see no reason why Mormons should not be entitled to the same respect for their basic text as shown by Robert Alter and Northrop Frye for the Bible.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert,

Could you remind us what all of that Mormon supporting science is again?

You might want to begin by comparing what was known to 19th century archeology, anthropology, and linguistics to start.  B. H. Roberts compiled a good deal of data, which remained unpublished due to objections from some of the Brethren.  However, we can now assess that collection of careful study on the Book of Mormon and take note of the vast areas in which improved knowledge is now available.  Hugh Nibley, FARMS, and FAIRMORMON brought a lot of that into focus and made it readily available -- much of it easily accessible online now.

 

Two books by John L. Sorenson have brought together much of that data (An Ancient American Setting and Mormon's Codex), as has Brant Gardner's multi-volume commentary on the Book of Mormon (Second Witness).  There is a marked contrast in the amount and quality of the science available to Roberts, and that available to current authors.

[Calm]

Delete in hope of being more specific....

Edited February 4, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

"Scientists theorize that in an era that predated Book of Mormon accounts, a relatively small group of people migrated from northeast Asia to the Americas by way of a land bridge that connected Siberia to Alaska.4 These people, scientists say, spread rapidly to fill North and South America and were likely the primary ancestors of modern American Indians.5"

"For example, a 2013 study states that as much as one-third of Native American DNA originated anciently in Europe or West Asia and was likely introduced into the gene pool before the earliest migration to the Americas.16 This study paints a more complex picture than is suggested by the prevailing opinion that all Native American DNA is essentially East Asian.""

"Scientists do not rule out the possibility of additional, small-scale migrations to the Americas.18 For example, a 2010 genetic analysis of a well-preserved 4,000-year-old Paleo-Eskimo in Greenland led scientists to hypothesize that a group of people besides those from East Asia had migrated to the Americas.19 Commenting on this study, population geneticist Marcus Feldman of Stanford University said: “Models that suggest a single one-time migration are generally regarded as idealized systems. … There may have been small amounts of migrations going on for millennia.”20"

Just what is the false impression that is left by this above?

Edited February 4, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Can't remember if this was pointed out to those who say we don't need any DNA from the Lehite group DNA (5 possible contributors mentioned before):

"Consider the case of Dr. Ugo A. Perego, a Latter-day Saint population geneticist. His genealogy confirms that he is a multigeneration Italian, but the DNA of his paternal genetic lineage is from a branch of the Asian/Native American haplogroup C. This likely means that, somewhere along the line, a migratory event from Asia to Europe led to the introduction of DNA atypical of Perego’s place of origin.21 If Perego and his family were to colonize an isolated landmass, future geneticists conducting a study of his descendants’ Y chromosomes might conclude that the original settlers of that landmass were from Asia rather than Italy. This hypothetical story shows that conclusions about the genetics of a population must be informed by a clear understanding of the DNA of the population’s founders. In the case of the Book of Mormon, clear information of that kind is unavailable."

[Calm]

Aren't they contradictory to this new essay?  In my mind, they seem to be.  

 

If these places are filled with Lamanites and sons and daughters of Lehi, etc., then can't their DNA be tested?  The essays claim there is none available to test.

Are you saying this below means there are no descendants at all or that there may be no Lehite DNA among the current population to prove a relationship that is believed to exist bythe Church? And if the latter are you assuming that if they don't have DNA, it proves they weren't descendants?....because if you are, you must have skipped or not understood the previous paragraphs....so I will assume you don't assume the last unless you tell me you do.

But if that isn't why you believe there must be something we can identify now as Lehite DNA if there are any descendants, I still would like a specific reference because I didn't find anything claiming such that I could see in the general info pages you gave me links for...highly informative though they were.

" In other words, Native Americans whose ancestors include Book of Mormon peoples may not be able to confirm that relationship using their DNA.26"

[stemelbow]

What the writers of this part of the article clearly had to know but failed to disclose because it conflicted with LDS doctrine was that the early common European/west Asian DNA was from a common ancestor 24,000 years ago. The real question is why they would not be honest and share this information

 

hey Johnnie Cake.  Let's not get all upset quite yet over this.  of course they did suggest the western influence was introduced to the population before the migration to the Americas, which was already specified to be much earlier than Lehi's group.  I don't think it's nearly as dishonest as you see it.  But we're coming from different perspectives on this, so I see how you want to view this with a cynical eye.

 

This is all very fascinating though.  Let's take a considered approach to this.  At least a little.  Let's say we were somehow now able to trace Lehi's genealogy back 20 generations.  That could include (2^20) over 1 million people.  Of that one million perhaps but one , his 20th generation grandpa could be considered of jewish or jewish-like descent.  And let's say the majority of his one million ancestors were from the same type of Siberian descent that is claimed for all or most of native Americans.  Now forward that down many generations (Let's say 20 again), losing male connections along the way.  At what point would we lose a jewish marker and be stuck primarily with a Siberain marker? 

 

Shoot dawg, I just don't see the possibilities being anything but endless here.  The critique (a la Southerton and company) is nothing but presumption, it seems to me. 

[The Nehor]

A reductio ad absurdum, Robert, if you will allow me:

 

Does that mean that the Maya genes have spread to all parts of the Americas?  Does that mean that most aboriginal Americans could be considered Mayan.

Depends on how you define it. If having one Mayan ancestor makes you Mayan then yes.

[The Nehor]

A reductio ad absurdum, Robert, if you will allow me:

 

Does that mean that the Maya genes have spread to all parts of the Americas?  Does that mean that most aboriginal Americans could be considered Mayan.

Depends on how you define it. If having some Mayan ancestors makes you Mayan then yes. If it means having a majority probably not.

[The Nehor]

My bad...For a moment I thought a nice person had actually taken over your body...oh well...guess you exercised him out...welcome back Nehor

[ALarson]

Are you saying this below means there are no descendants at all or that there may be no Lehite DNA among the current population to prove a relationship that is believed to exist bythe Church? And if the latter are you assuming that if they don't have DNA, it proves they weren't descendants?....because if you are, you must have skipped or not understood the previous paragraphs....so I will assume you don't assume the last unless you tell me you do.

[ALarson]

I found this written by Simon Southerton (I know many will disregard it simply because it's from him but I thought I'd post it) regarding your question too, calmoriah:

 

Essay quote:

 

"One reason it is difficult to use DNA evidence to draw definite conclusions about Book of Mormon peoples is that nothing is known about the DNA that Lehi, Sariah, Ishmael, and others brought to the Americas

Southerton's Response:

"No. The problem is (1) we don’t have any "orphan" DNA lineages which may have come from somewhere else but Asia and (2) that Asian DNA (99.5%) arrived in the Americas in excess of 15,000 years ago. The only non-Asian DNA (0.5%) is either western European or African and derived from post-Columbus admixture. It is also quite ridiculous to claim that we know nothing about the likely DNA lineages of the Book of Mormon founders. They came from the Middle East and most were genealogically Hebrew. They would have carried Middle Eastern or Hebrew DNA lineages, which are well characterised."

[stemelbow]

I found this written by Simon Southerton (I know many will disregard it simply because it's from him but I thought I'd post it) regarding your question too, calmoriah:

 

Essay quote:

 

"One reason it is difficult to use DNA evidence to draw definite conclusions about Book of Mormon peoples is that nothing is known about the DNA that Lehi, Sariah, Ishmael, and others brought to the Americas

Southerton's Response:

"No. The problem is (1) we don’t have any "orphan" DNA lineages which may have come from somewhere else but Asia and (2) that Asian DNA (99.5%) arrived in the Americas in excess of 15,000 years ago. The only non-Asian DNA (0.5%) is either western European or African and derived from post-Columbus admixture. It is also quite ridiculous to claim that we know nothing about the likely DNA lineages of the Book of Mormon founders. They came from the Middle East and most were genealogically Hebrew. They would have carried Middle Eastern or Hebrew DNA lineages, which are well characterised."

[Scott Lloyd]

A reductio ad absurdum, Robert, if you will allow me:

 

Does that mean that the Maya genes have spread to all parts of the Americas?  Does that mean that most aboriginal Americans could be considered Mayan.

I admit that had never occurred to me before, but why is the idea absurd?

[The Nehor]

I found this written by Simon Southerton (I know many will disregard it simply because it's from him but I thought I'd post it) regarding your question too, calmoriah:

 

Essay quote:

 

"One reason it is difficult to use DNA evidence to draw definite conclusions about Book of Mormon peoples is that nothing is known about the DNA that Lehi, Sariah, Ishmael, and others brought to the AmericasSoutherton's Response:

"No. The problem is (1) we don’t have any "orphan" DNA lineages which may have come from somewhere else but Asia and (2) that Asian DNA (99.5%) arrived in the Americas in excess of 15,000 years ago. The only non-Asian DNA (0.5%) is either western European or African and derived from post-Columbus admixture. It is also quite ridiculous to claim that we know nothing about the likely DNA lineages of the Book of Mormon founders. They came from the Middle East and most were genealogically Hebrew. They would have carried Middle Eastern or Hebrew DNA lineages, which are well characterised."

The odd thing is that I agree with Southerton. He gave a rebuttal against those who hit his work and admitted that if Lehi and his descendants intermarried with a preexisting population we would not expect to find them:

"In 600 BC there were probably several million American Indians living in the Americas. If a small group of Israelites, say less than thirty, entered such a massive native population, it would be very hard to detect their genes today. However, such a scenario does not square with what the Book of Mormon plainly states and with what the prophets have taught for 175 years."

I disagree with the last sentence of course.

[Scott Lloyd]

The odd thing is that I agree with Southerton. He gave a rebuttal against those who hit his work and admitted that if Lehi and his descendants intermarried with a preexisting population we would not expect to find them:

"In 600 BC there were probably several million American Indians living in the Americas. If a small group of Israelites, say less than thirty, entered such a massive native population, it would be very hard to detect their genes today. However, such a scenario does not square with what the Book of Mormon plainly states and with what the prophets have taught for 175 years."

I disagree with the last sentence of course.

Interesting that Southerton unwittingly undercut his own position by essentially arguing against the traditional but not scripturally-supported concept.

[cinepro]

This whole discussion makes Act One in this show oddly ironic.

 

A Native American tribe is doing exactly the opposite of what you'd think they'd do: they're kicking people out of the tribe, huge numbers of them, including people whose ancestors without question were part of the tribe.

 

There is a Native American tribe in California called the Chukchansi that’s fighting over the most basic thing any group can fight over — who should be a member? David Ferry explains just how bitter their dispute has become. (22 minutes)

[rodheadlee]

"It's obvious to anyone who reads the BOM that the peoples there lived among others, and probably were a semi-distinct people, but over the centuries, interbred with those other people."

 

I disagree. I think if one were to read the BofM without the outside influence of revisionist apologists, one would come to the conclusion that the Lamanites and Nephites (and possibly one lonely mulekite) were the only civilizations existing in the Americas.

I disagree with your disagreement. I first read the BoM in 1982.It would be 18 years before we would acquire a computer and use the internet and another 8 years before apologist became a word in my vocabulary. I NEVER thought the Nephites and Lamanites were alone in the Americas. I always thought the Jaredites were the Olmec and some branch of or among Mayan were the Nephites and all others were considered Lamanites. It was the only civilization that fit the story. From day 1 with the Book of Mormon I figured Jesus Christ visited the Americas at or near El Salvador.

 

When He returns in Glory it won't break my heart or cause me to quit the Church to find out I was wrong. It bothers me greatly that so many people toss out their spiritual experiences, their covenants, their priesthood authority, their eternal marriages for a bit of perceived knowledge. We see through the glass darkly and some things have to be put on a shelf until more knowledge is revealed. This means secular studies combined with personal revelation.  I wish there was something I could do to help people maintain their faith in Jesus Christ, His Church and His Priesthood and all that it entails. Don't put God in a box, He can stand the truth.