Book Of Mormon Dna, The Church Statement, And The Heartland (Evolution Too!)

[Calm]

The issues were already there. The Church is seeing that there is value in its joining the dialogue now.

[Johnnie Cake]

I've been quite critical of the church hiding information from its membership and whitewashing its history (and yes I understand that there are arguments on both sides of that statement).  So despite the fact that I disagree with everything that the church is saying in this essay and believe it to be complete and utter rubbish...at least they are making a statement and taking ownership of a position.  And whether or not I agree or disagree at least they are taking a stand...so I guess that is my backhanded approval

 

Back in May of 2011 I posted this in an earlier thread on this board:

 

"My suggestion would be to throw open the doors and let the fresh air in...deal with it in an honest manner so that future young members of the church arn't blindsided with difficult foundational claims or with the difficult realities surrounding Joseph Smith's life and claims.

It is only through an honest open discussion of these difficult issues that the church can innoculate its young members and have a hope to keep them INSIDE the church. Because trying to make believe that this information isn't out there or not available to church membership just won't work any longer...trust me the cat is out of the bag"          

 

It appears that someone from the COB was reading...

 

 

Now lets see how long it takes for Nehor to respond to my post  1--2--3--

Edited February 13, 2014 by Johnnie Cake

[Robert F. Smith]

Cinepro,

 

I've had a profound change of heart the past few weeks as I've seen the link you posted and many other outbursts by traditional members who are struggling to accept the new Gospel Topic essays.  I come from Southern US heritage; my extended family joined the church in the south after WWII.  Growing up, I was too young to understand when the '78 revelation happened, but I overheard many subsequent family conversations mentioning that some members had left the church because of it.  From my background and ignorance, I always assumed these former members left because of they were racist.  I've now come to realize that most of them were probably just fundamentalists who had embraced (and possibly sacrified to accept) the prior teachings justifying the ban. 

 

I'm sorry I misjudged these former members.  Most of them were likely not racists, at least not strong ones.  They simply believed that prophets could not change their minds. 

Jonah the Prophet had the same problem and became petulant and resentful about it.  Apostasy in ancient Israel and even today has often followed from inability to accept continuing revelation.

 

Moreover, when anger enters in, the Holy Spirit is grieved and will not stay.

[Robert F. Smith]

I think the DNA article is great but I do agree that it causes some more problems.  The answers that the article provides are based on an old-earth evolutionary model that the church has not yet embraced. So I can understand why the author of the Facebook post is frustrated.   We now have some very contradictory information coming from the church.  I would really love to see a Gospel Topics article on evolution or science that can clear up this confusion.

I'm not sure that a discussion of evolution is relevant, but the time-depth issue has already been addressed by several of the Brethren over the years, and they do not adhere to a young Earth model.  Nor should they.

[Scott Lloyd]

From the cited Facebook post:

 

Just last week, Church Correlation approved the publication of the Book of Mormon and DNA article on LDS.org. There’s no way to say this softly, so I will just say it: That article is complete and total garbage! I was disgusted by it.

 

(Bolded emphasis mine for reference.)

 

It's amusing how conservative gospel hobbyists or liberal complainers immediately blame Correlation whenever the Church says or does something they don't like -- as though Correlation were some sort of Star Chamber acting outside of established priesthood channels and supervision from Church leadership.

 

To Jake HIlton and others to whom it may apply: Correlation is directed and controlled by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, not the other way around. Spare us your sermonizing about scriptures, "God's word" and the "arm of flesh," and consider that it just might be you, and not the current leadership of the Church, who is off the mark.

Edited February 15, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[BCSpace]

I think the DNA article is great but I do agree that it causes some more problems.  The answers that the article provides are based on an old-earth evolutionary model that the church has not yet embraced. So I can understand why the author of the Facebook post is frustrated.   We now have some very contradictory information coming from the church.  I would really love to see a Gospel Topics article on evolution or science that can clear up this confusion.

 

Jake's (on Facebook) problem is three-fold:

 

1) He doesn't seem to realize that doctrine (modern revelation/inspiration) is more important than scripture.

 

2) The scriptures don't necessarily point to or support any specific geographical model.  The only way that happens is by cherry-picking and/or ignoring other evidence.

 

3) The Church has doctrinally embraced:

   a) The earth could be billions of years old.  See the OT Institute Manual chapter on Genesis 1 and the doctrine on D&C 77:5-6 in the D&C    Institute manual.

   b) The possibility of pre-Adamite races of man on the earth.  See the 1931 Heber J Grant First Presidency Statement.

 

 

[Deborah]

I'm both amused and confused by the contention on these issues. If you believe the BOM is a true account and contains important teachings does it really matter what the "evidence" shows? New evidence is still being discovered in this day and age where we think there is nothing else to be found. Yet recently there have been some amazing finds of cities and structures never before seen.

 

I was just reading today where Joseph F. Smith attended a two day Book of Mormon geography conference that was held at Brigham Young Academy on May 23-24, 1903, when he said "...the idea that the question of the city (of Zarahemla) was one of interest certainly, but if it could not be located the matter was not of vital importance, and if there were differences of opinion on the question it would not affect the salvation of the people; and he advised against students considering it of such vital importance as the principles of the Gospel." The same applies to DNA.

[Calm]

I can't remember if someone has posted this or something like it yet, but for those who treat the essays as a pet project of closet apostates or whatever....

"The church's First Presidency approves each of the enhanced topic pages.

"The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve both have been very supportive of this process," Elder Snow said. "I think they sense the need to provide accurate information to our members to counter a lot of sensationalism that tends to come about online or on the Internet over some of these historical topics.""

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865592128/LDS-Church-enhances-web-pages-on-its-history-doctrine.html?pg=all

[Scott Lloyd]

I can't remember if someone has posted this or something like it yet, but for those who treat the essays as a pet project of closet apostates or whatever....

"The church's First Presidency approves each of the enhanced topic pages.

"The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve both have been very supportive of this process," Elder Snow said. "I think they sense the need to provide accurate information to our members to counter a lot of sensationalism that tends to come about online or on the Internet over some of these historical topics.""

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865592128/LDS-Church-enhances-web-pages-on-its-history-doctrine.html?pg=all

Yes. Wiki Wonka (who was quoted in the article) already posted the link.

It is important, because it torpedoes the misguided notion that essays are a product of Correlation run amok.

[Robert F. Smith]

Jake's (on Facebook) problem is three-fold:

 

1) He doesn't seem to realize that doctrine (modern revelation/inspiration) is more important than scripture.

 

2) The scriptures don't necessarily point to or support any specific geographical model.  The only way that happens is by cherry-picking and/or ignoring other evidence.

 

3) The Church has doctrinally embraced:

   a) The earth could be billions of years old.  See the OT Institute Manual chapter on Genesis 1 and the doctrine on D&C 77:5-6 in the D&C    Institute manual.

   b) The possibility of pre-Adamite races of man on the earth.  See the 1931 Heber J Grant First Presidency Statement.

#3 makes good sense, but I'm not sure that every interpretation of scripture is based on cherry picking or ignoring -- what is termed "text abuse" by good exegetes.  It could very well be (and often is in my opinion) the case that those who have "itching ears" are very selective in what they cite.  We should not, however, accord equal respect or contempt to those who play fast & loose with Scripture (eisegesis).

 

Also, I don't think it wise to set Scripture over against Doctrine.  Those that find satisfaction in such a freakish endeavor probably have difficulties which go way beyond doctrine or scripture.

[Robert F. Smith]

............................................

It is important, because it torpedoes the misguided notion that essays are a product of Correlation run amok.

Yes, Scott, but it might also be well to avoid the other extreme -- according timeless and  inerrant status to this year's statements and manuals, without any sense of perspective on all the manuals and statements going back over a century.  The authors of the manuals and the Brethren who review them are humans after all.  Taking extreme positions in such matters is often very harmful to those innocent and unsophisticated members who have not yet acquired adequate information and perspective.

 

I have encountered several people on this board who have apostatized based on minimal and misleading information.  Had they been able to mature and grow in the faith, they might have been able to roll with the punches.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, Scott, but it might also be well to avoid the other extreme -- according timeless and inerrant status to this year's statements and manuals, without any sense of perspective on all the manuals and statements going back over a century.

My impression is that the essays make a solid effort to preclude that sort of thing. They refrain from ascribing an official position to the Church where there is no such position, while, at the same time, pointing to some of the best scholarship and thinking currently available on the respective topics.

[Calm]

Yes. Wiki Wonka (who was quoted in the article) already posted the link.

It is important, because it torpedoes the misguided notion that essays are a product of Correlation run amok.

Thanks, I was on my ipad which makes it much harder to search and easier to lose one's place and one's post.

 

PS:  I even gave him a point, lol.  I need to get an upgrade of my memory chip.

Edited February 16, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

My impression is that the essays make a solid effort to preclude that sort of thing. They refrain from ascribing an official position to the Church where there is no such position, while, at the same time, pointing to some of the best scholarship and thinking currently available on the respective topics.

And they are leaving open additional information to be added if and when it becomes available (as well as using technology to make learning more effective).  Definitely not a 'cut in stone' approach.

[BCSpace]

#3 makes good sense, but I'm not sure that every interpretation of scripture is based on cherry picking or ignoring -- what is termed "text abuse" by good exegetes.  It could very well be (and often is in my opinion) the case that those who have "itching ears" are very selective in what they cite.  We should not, however, accord equal respect or contempt to those who play fast & loose with Scripture (eisegesis).

 

I agree.  For instance, not everyone takes everything into account because it may not be known to them for one reason or another, a reason I failed to mention.

 

Also, I don't think it wise to set Scripture over against Doctrine.  Those that find satisfaction in such a freakish endeavor probably have difficulties which go way beyond doctrine or scripture.

 

I disagree.  Putting doctrine over scripture actually puts modern revelation over ancient revelation which is essentially LDS doctrine anyway and not 'freakish' at all.  Here's an example of how it helps:

 

John 3:5

LDS say the water refers to water baptism.

Other christians say it refers to physical birth.

 

How do we LDS know that the water is water baptism?  Because some modern prophet said it does and such is published officially by the Church.  And thus someone who is not LDS will have to accept the notion of modern prophets and the Church organization in order to accept LDS doctrine.  Hence the doctrine is more important than scripture.

 

Do doctrines change?  Of course.  But we accept that as part of the package as we get new understanding from the Lord.  As the Church has stated, the doctrine resides in the scriptures (among other things) and it takes the prophets to establish what those are.  Without the doctrine, it is not likely that we LDS would put such a premium on the correct form of baptism.

[Calm]

From the facebook page linked to in the original post:

 

More than that, they outright lied when they said in the article: “The mitochondrial DNA haplogroups A, B, C, D, and X, all of which are predominantly East Asian.” That is simply a lie. You can read for yourself a recent study done by the National Geographic Society which stated: “Nearly one-third of Native American genes come from west Eurasian people linked to the Middle East and Europe, rather than entirely from East Asians as previously thought, according to a newly sequenced genome” (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/11/131120-science-native-american-people-migration-siberia-genetics/). Now, the National Geographic Society also believes in evolutionary theory, which is of course wrong. However, they at least acknowledge the truth that one-third of all Native Americans have DNA that links them to the Middle East and not Asia, which is, at least, a very important step in the right direction.

 

 

Notice from the Church's DNA article he is quoting what follows his quote:

 

At the present time, scientific consensus holds that the vast majority of Native Americans belong to sub-branches of the Y-chromosome haplogroups C and Q¹⁴ and the mitochondrial DNA haplogroups A, B, C, D, and X, all of which are predominantly East Asian.¹⁵ But the picture is not entirely clear. Continuing studies provide new insights, and some challenge previous conclusions. 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.

 

 

 

Red is what was quoted on Mormon Evidences.  Compare the two green parts…I am wondering how someone can lie by omission when they use the very evidence that the accuser claims to prove they are being deceptive?  If it is a step in the right direction for the NGS, why not for this article?

 

BTW in response to a question in another private forum (so no link, sorry), Ugo answered using this very reference and has allowed me to quote him, he is definitely not ignoring it or its implications, instead he is very interested in it and its implications:

 

Secondly, my article was written a couple of years ago. The field of genomics is continually evolving an[d] new findings may totally change what we thought we previously know. Last November for example, a publication in Nature presented data from human fossils dating back 24,000 from Siberia. The paper is found here http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12736.html. The article "Upper Palaeolithic Siberian genome reveals dual ancestry of Native Americans" proposed that up to 1/3 of modern Native American's DNA has European or West Asian origins. These findings completely revolutionize what we previously knew about the genetic composition of Native Americans' DNA. In my mind, things got a little more interesting, but a new level of complexity has been added to the equation. Particularly, the greatest difficulty does not lay in identifying Old World DNA in the Americas, but in being able to have instruments that are sensitive enough to discern migrations and admixture between Natives of Asian origins, with Old World people before and after the large wave of Europeans arriving in the Americas after Columbus. In talking with many of my colleagues, they simply don't think it is possible to identify European DNA introgression that occurred 200 years ago from, let's say, 2500 years ago. The time is simply not there to see substantial genetic differences. Only ancient DNA like the one from Siberia or from Neanderthals can shed additional light on what may have happened tens of thousands years ago, long before Book of Mormon times.

 

 

 

[Calm]

Hilton is misunderstanding what the NG article is talking about. It is not dealing with haplogroup DNA, but autosomal DNA so it does not contradict the claim of predominant East Asian DNA:

"The LDS article talks about the original research that was publicized through the National Geographic and it was in reference to autosomal DNA admixture. The Siberian sample used in the study carried a Ycs haplgroup R1b and a mtDNA haplogroup U, both found in high frequencies in Europe."

From my private sources, again sorry no link, but one can easily prove or disprove this theirselves.

People can also have both MidEastern and East Asian/European DNA at the same time as well, seeing as how we are a DNA mixture, not a pure type.

Edited February 16, 2014 by calmoriah

[katherine the great]

Hilton is misunderstanding what the NG article is talking about. It is not dealing with haplogroup DNA, but autosomal DNA so it does not contradict the claim of predominant East Asian DNA:

"The LDS article talks about the original research that was publicized through the National Geographic and it was in reference to autosomal DNA admixture. The Siberian sample used in the study carried a Ycs haplgroup R1b and a mtDNA haplogroup U, both found in high frequencies in Europe."

From my private sources, again sorry no link, but one can easily prove or disprove this theirselves.

People can also have both MidEastern and East Asian/European DNA at the same time as well, seeing as how we are a DNA mixture, not a pure type.

Yep.  Hilton looks very young and he is a "videographer"--definitely not a biologist.  He really should learn to keep his mouth shut until he educates himself.  People like this are kind of embarrassing to the church. 

[Stone holm]

The problem with these articles and the Book of Mormon is they really don't prove anything one way or the other. The pertinent question is how did the genes get here, not whether they are here. I suppose if the argument was that Eastern Asian genes were the sole contributor, rather than whether they came by land or sea, it would be meaningful.

[Scott Lloyd]

The problem with these articles and the Book of Mormon is they really don't prove anything one way or the otherl.

Even if all they do is leave the question open, they have thereby frustrated the intent of the antagonist, which is to use science to disprove Mormonism.

As I've often said, the anti-Mormon has a far more formidable challenge than the defender. So long as the question remains open, we can reasonably invite a sincere seeker to go to God in prayer and ask for a spiritual witness -- which is really the essence of the message proclaimed by the Church of Jesus Christ in any event.

Edited February 19, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Stone holm]

Even if all they do is leave the question open, they have thereby frustrated the intent of the antagonist, which is to use science to disprove Mormonism.

As I've often said, the anti-Mormon has a far more formidable challenge than the defender. So long as the question remains open, we can reasonable invite a sincere seeker to go to God in prayer and ask for a spiritual witness -- which is really the essence of the message proclaimed by the Church of Jesus Christ in any event.

 

True, as long as people understand that the article does not establish anything about the Book of Mormon, and realize even if it becomes the established scientific wisdom -- it actually can then be used to throw doubt on future findings in the Americas of such genes because it stands for the proposition that the gene mixing occurred before they crossed the land bridge.  I doubt that we will ever be able to definitively prove the B of M through Science or disprove it either in that manner.

[Alan]

In my view, the church should have kept away from this.

I'm a "Heartlander" myself because the text of the BofM itself makes it obvious to me.

I know a little about DNA; enough to know that no one knows enough to pontificate about it and use it as evidence of this that and the other.

In my life I have found that when science and the scriptures appear to be at variance, it is best and safest to go with the scriptures.

[thesometimesaint]

In my view, the church should have kept away from this.

I'm a "Heartlander" myself because the text of the BofM itself makes it obvious to me.

I know a little about DNA; enough to know that no one knows enough to pontificate about it and use it as evidence of this that and the other.

In my life I have found that when science and the scriptures appear to be at variance, it is best and safest to go with the scriptures.

 

For the time being I think it is best to keep them separated as far as possible.

 

The Bible claims Pi is exactly 3 but Pastor Peter LaRuffa of Grace Fellowship Church in Kentucky saying this: "If somewhere within the Bible I were to find a passage that said two plus two equals five, I wouldn’t question what I’m reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and then do my best to work it out and to understand it".

[canard78]

For the time being I think it is best to keep them separated as far as possible.

 

The Bible claims Pi is exactly 3 but Pastor Peter LaRuffa of Grace Fellowship Church in Kentucky saying this: "If somewhere within the Bible I were to find a passage that said two plus two equals five, I wouldn’t question what I’m reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and then do my best to work it out and to understand it".

 

"The Bible claims Pi is exactly 3"

 

Reference please (out of interest, not incredulity)

[Rob Osborn]

"The Bible claims Pi is exactly 3"

 

Reference please (out of interest, not incredulity)

http://creation.com/does-the-bible-say-pi-equals-3

The whole "pi" being incorrect in the bible (by God) is a faulty argument by evolutionists and atheists to discredit the bible. I get tired of it as most just pass along what they hear and not look into the truth for themselves

Edited February 19, 2014 by Rob Osborn