Oceania Dna In Brazilian Native Americans - Good Or Bad News For The Book Of Mormon?

[canard78]

Another snip from the BYU Religious Studies article:

"There can be no question but that their altered skin color was a miraculous act of God; it cannot be understood in purely metaphoric terms, nor as being nothing more than the natural consequence of prolonged exposure to the sun. Nephi was explicit that “the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them” (2 Nephi 5:21; emphasis added). The prophet Jacob later spoke of how the Nephites hated the Lamanites “because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins,” and warned the immoral Nephites that unless they repented, the Lamanites’ “skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God” (Jacob 3:5)"

This quote is based on assumptions piled on top of assumptions.

[Sevenbak]

This quote is based on assumptions piled on top of assumptions.

Then I suggest sending any and all complaints to BYU Religious Studies Center.  

 

But since their said purpose is: "the research and publishing arm of Religious Education at Brigham Young University, sponsoring scholarship on Latter-day Saint culture, history, scripture, and doctrine."  and...

 

"Believing that church leaders, not scholars, are the ultimate doctrinal authority, the RSC seeks to only add historical, cultural, and linguistic context, and explore new views of the LDS religious tradition."...

 

...I'm not sure how far you are going to get.

[Robert F. Smith]

To say that the curse was only a cultural affiliation also ignores the text. I think we tend to bend over backwards to be politically correct, and that's fine but the point is that a physical change happened.

The irony here to me, is that when I try to say a genetic change is a scientific principle that explains what happened to them, it gets poo-pooed away. Maybe yall believe in miracles after all. :-)

Those of us who have made a systematic analysis of the Book of Mormon see it as a "cultural affectation," as we have seen before on this board:  http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/57384-the-hill-cumorah/page__st__20 .  You should familiarize yourself with the debate.

 

Brant A. Gardner, “If Lamanites were black, why didn’t anyone notice?” FairBlog, May 21, 2012, online at http://www.fairblog.org/2012/05/21/if-lamanites-were-black-why-didnt-anyone-notice/ .

John A. Tvedtnes, "The Charge of 'Racism' in the Book of Mormon," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003):183–197, online at http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/15/2/S00010-5176b139bd48510Tvedtnes.pdf .

[PeterPear]

Those of us who have made a systematic analysis of the Book of Mormon see it as a "cultural affectation," as we have seen before on this board:  http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/57384-the-hill-cumorah/page__st__20 .  You should familiarize yourself with the debate.

 

Brant A. Gardner, “If Lamanites were black, why didn’t anyone notice?” FairBlog, May 21, 2012, online at http://www.fairblog.org/2012/05/21/if-lamanites-were-black-why-didnt-anyone-notice/ .

John A. Tvedtnes, "The Charge of 'Racism' in the Book of Mormon," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003):183–197, online at http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/15/2/S00010-5176b139bd48510Tvedtnes.pdf .

After read Brant Gardner's article one has to believe anything untoward in The Book of Mormon should be considered a metaphor.

[thesometimesaint]

After read Brant Gardner's article one has to believe anything untoward in The Book of Mormon should be considered a metaphor.

 

Not really. All we have to do is realize that these were people with much the same prejudices, faults, and sins that we have.

[Sevenbak]

Those of us who have made a systematic analysis of the Book of Mormon see it as a "cultural affectation," as we have seen before on this board: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/57384-the-hill-cumorah/page__st__20 . You should familiarize yourself with the debate.

Brant A. Gardner, “If Lamanites were black, why didn’t anyone notice?” FairBlog, May 21, 2012, online at http://www.fairblog.org/2012/05/21/if-lamanites-were-black-why-didnt-anyone-notice/ .

John A. Tvedtnes, "The Charge of 'Racism' in the Book of Mormon," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003):183–197, online at http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/15/2/S00010-5176b139bd48510Tvedtnes.pdf .

I've read them. I especially like Tvedtness. But there are many many others who have also studied the BoM systematically that don't share your conclusions. I'm a lifelong student myself, in my own humble corner. I think we need to be very careful as to place our own wisdom and learning as the measurement of truth.

But, I'll say it again, quoting from the BYU Religious Studies Center. "Believing that church leaders, not scholars, are the ultimate doctrinal authority, the RSC seeks to only add historical, cultural, and linguistic context, and explore new views of the LDS religious tradition."

To me, the new politically correct approach has too much wresting of the text to be taken at face value.

Edited July 27, 2015 by Sevenbak

[katherine the great]

You know that won't help a bit with the mDNA analysis.  You would have to find Ishmael's daughters for that.

Men have mitochondrial DNA too.  They don't pass it down to their children, but it reflects their own maternal ancestry.

[bofmmodel]

Several replies to this post have called the two studies "irrelevant", and that is correct in the sense that it does not show any connection to the middle-east, but the original post here made the most important point:

 

...On one hand we could say it's good because it proves that the DNA profile of native Americans is still not resolved and there's more to discover....

 

For more than 20 years we have been told that mtDNA evidence is sufficient to show that Native Americans are not related to middle-eastern cultures.  Over and over and over the authors of uni-parental studies have told us that they have painted a complete-enough picture of the origins of Native Americans that we can rule out migrations like the Book of Mormon describes.  The two studies that came out this month tell us clearly that uni-parental DNA studies have been over-hyped and that the true heritage of Native Americans is much more complex than they thought.

 

Another notable study that makes this same point was published in Nature last year and is titled "Upper Palaeolithic Siberian genome reveals dual ancestry of Native Americans".  It shows strong genetic ties between Native Americans and ancient western Europeans.  Just like the studies this week, mtDNA and Y-Chromosome analysis didn't detect this ancestry either.

 

It's true that uni-parental studies reveal a lot of population sub-structure.  The problem is that scholars are seeing this sub-structure and thinking that it tells the whole story.  What we are learning is that the picture is far less complete than they thought.

 

So if the Book of Mormon is true, why haven't these studies turned up evidence of middle-eastern ancestry in Native Americans?  There are several factors playing a role including genetic drift, but the biggest factor is the fact that most modern studies intentionally disregard DNA samples that tie to old-world sources.  It's not some consipracy against the Book of Mormon, they simply have to disregard them because there has been far too much genetic admixture since 1492.  When a Native American DNA sample shows old-world markers, standard procedure is to disregard the sample and not consider it in the study.  If you look into the supporting material for the studies this week you will find that fact spelled out specifically.  Studies of modern Native American DNA of any kind are simply incapable of ever showing any ties to the old-world.

 

On the other hand, studies of ancient DNA hold better potential, but they are hampered by assumptions of contamination.  In other words, when an ancient sample shows old-world markers it is usually assumed that the sample has been contaminated by DNA from modern sources.  Contamination is very common so it is a big problem in ancient DNA research.  Old-world genetic markers are very commonly found in ancient DNA research, but they are simply disregarded in the studies but you will almost always find them mentioned in the supporting notes.

 

We need to understand that the population genetics is a field that is going through significant changes as it matures.  The conclusions of many studies that seemed rock-solid a few years ago are now being seen in a very different light.

[Robert F. Smith]

After read Brant Gardner's article one has to believe anything untoward in The Book of Mormon should be considered a metaphor.

Not really. All we have to do is realize that these were people with much the same prejudices, faults, and sins that we have.

One frequently encounters figurative and metaphorical expression in the Bible.  Literalists unfamiliar with such terms have a very hard time understanding the Bible and their failure extends also to the Book of Mormon.

 

Years ago I wrote a study of the supposed racist terms in the Book of Mormon.  It reached conclusions very similar to those independently reached by my friend John Tvedtnes, and for the same reasons.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

To me, the new politically correct approach has too much wresting of the text to be taken at face value.

The "wrestling" with the text I don't mind.  Indeed, only those who "wrestle" with the text are likely to learn anything.  It is the wresting of the text which should concern us.

 

I'm not sure what a PC reading of the text might give us, except that it might force the text to read in accord with our preconceptions.  That is classic eisegesis or "wresting" of the text.

[canard78]

Several replies to this post have called the two studies "irrelevant", and that is correct in the sense that it does not show any connection to the middle-east, but the original post here made the most important point:

For more than 20 years we have been told that mtDNA evidence is sufficient to show that Native Americans are not related to middle-eastern cultures. Over and over and over the authors of uni-parental studies have told us that they have painted a complete-enough picture of the origins of Native Americans that we can rule out migrations like the Book of Mormon describes. The two studies that came out this month tell us clearly that uni-parental DNA studies have been over-hyped and that the true heritage of Native Americans is much more complex than they thought.

Another notable study that makes this same point was published in Nature last year and is titled "Upper Palaeolithic Siberian genome reveals dual ancestry of Native Americans". It shows strong genetic ties between Native Americans and ancient western Europeans. Just like the studies this week, mtDNA and Y-Chromosome analysis didn't detect this ancestry either.

While I agree with you that the profile of their origins is not 'closed' I think you're overstating the significance of the Siberia find. The location of the DNA and the date of the DNA simply means that the earliest ancestral origins were more diverse. That doesn't mean that any Western Europeans were part of the mix in the Americas.

It's true that uni-parental studies reveal a lot of population sub-structure. The problem is that scholars are seeing this sub-structure and thinking that it tells the whole story. What we are learning is that the picture is far less complete than they thought.

Again, happy to agree that the picture is not yet complete. How incomplete? Probably only a little bit. We're left looking for the "small details" in a otherwise broadly complete picture.

So if the Book of Mormon is true, why haven't these studies turned up evidence of middle-eastern ancestry in Native Americans? There are several factors playing a role including genetic drift, but the biggest factor is the fact that most modern studies intentionally disregard DNA samples that tie to old-world sources. It's not some consipracy against the Book of Mormon, they simply have to disregard them because there has been far too much genetic admixture since 1492. When a Native American DNA sample shows old-world markers, standard procedure is to disregard the sample and not consider it in the study. If you look into the supporting material for the studies this week you will find that fact spelled out specifically. Studies of modern Native American DNA of any kind are simply incapable of ever showing any ties to the old-world.

This is only an issue in samples taken from modern-day natives.

The studies mentioned above weren't based solely on modern samples though. Why do you suppose and ancient sample returned Oceania results, challenging previous assumptions and then weren't discarded?

If an ancient sample returned old world DNA, would they still discard it?

On the other hand, studies of ancient DNA hold better potential, but they are hampered by assumptions of contamination. In other words, when an ancient sample shows old-world markers it is usually assumed that the sample has been contaminated by DNA from modern sources. Contamination is very common so it is a big problem in ancient DNA research. Old-world genetic markers are very commonly found in ancient DNA research, but they are simply disregarded in the studies but you will almost always find them mentioned in the supporting notes.

We need to understand that the population genetics is a field that is going through significant changes as it matures. The conclusions of many studies that seemed rock-solid a few years ago are now being seen in a very different light.

The biggest conclusion I take from this is that:

a) The picture's not yet complete. The DNA case is by no means closed against the Book of Mormon.

b) Small influences of DNA should be discoverable. The LDS.org essay makes a big deal of the fact that it's unreasonable to expect to find Old world DNA at all from the Lehite party because it's so small an influence. The Brazil Oceana DNA proves that this conclusion is incorrect. It might hard to track it down given the size of the influence, but it should be possible.

[bofmmodel]

While I agree with you that the profile of their origins is not 'closed' I think you're overstating the significance of the Siberia find. The location of the DNA and the date of the DNA simply means that the earliest ancestral origins were more diverse. That doesn't mean that any Western Europeans were part of the mix in the Americas.

Again, happy to agree that the picture is not yet complete. How incomplete? Probably only a little bit. We're left looking for the "small details" in a otherwise broadly complete picture.

This is only an issue in samples taken from modern-day natives.

The studies mentioned above weren't based solely on modern samples though. Why do you suppose and ancient sample returned Oceania results, challenging previous assumptions and then weren't discarded?

If an ancient sample returned old world DNA, would they still discard it?

The biggest conclusion I take from this is that:

a) The picture's not yet complete. The DNA case is by no means closed against the Book of Mormon.

b) Small influences of DNA should be discoverable. The LDS.org essay makes a big deal of the fact that it's unreasonable to expect to find Old world DNA at all from the Lehite party because it's so small an influence. The Brazil Oceana DNA proves that this conclusion is incorrect. It might hard to track it down given the size of the influence, but it should be possible.

 

I think we're basically saying the same things.  I never did intend to imply that the Siberian DNA inferred European ancestry in Native Americans.  I only meant to point out that the Siberian DNA is a clear example of genetic influence from sources that do not seem to show up in studies that are based on uni-parental DNA.