Lamanites in the South Seas

[Sanpitch]

I don't remember this issue being discussed recently.  If it hasn't been beaten to death, what is the current feeling of the Lamanites in the South Seas.  I vaguely remember, I think, Spenser W Kimball saying that the Lamanites were spread through the South Seas and all over the American Continent.  But there is the DNA issue that doesn't seem to support that claim.  I can see that it could be claimed that the DNA could have been diluted to almost none existence.  Any comments?   I don't follow these histories closely but am interested. 

 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Sanpitch said:

I don't remember this issue being discussed recently.  If it hasn't been beaten to death, what is the current feeling of the Lamanites in the South Seas. 

From FAIR:

Quote

Many Latter-day prophets and apostles have stated that the inhabitants of the islands of the Pacific are considered to be Lamanites. This belief, at least in part, stems from the story of Hagoth in the Book of Mormon, who built ships which eventually carried an undetermined number of people to geographical regions outside the scope of the Book of Mormon narrative. Critics insist, however, that modern evidence, including DNA data, precludes the islanders from being descendants of Book of Mormon people.

I think DNA has some real limitations in what it can prove or disprove regarding The Book of Mormon.

2 minutes ago, Sanpitch said:

I vaguely remember, I think, Spenser W Kimball saying that the Lamanites were spread through the South Seas and all over the American Continent. 

Yep.  The above link has some quotes.

2 minutes ago, Sanpitch said:

But there is the DNA issue that doesn't seem to support that claim. 

"The DNA issue" isn't dispositive either way.  

2 minutes ago, Sanpitch said:

I can see that it could be claimed that the DNA could have been diluted to almost none existence.  Any comments?   I don't follow these histories closely but am interested. 

There are plenty of resources available on this topic.  Here are a few:

• Gospel Topics Essay: Book of Mormon and DNA Studies
• Jeff Lindsay: Does DNA evidence refute the Book of Mormon?
• FAIR: The Book of Mormon and DNA evidence

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

55 minutes ago, Sanpitch said:

I don't remember this issue being discussed recently.  If it hasn't been beaten to death, what is the current feeling of the Lamanites in the South Seas.  I vaguely remember, I think, Spenser W Kimball saying that the Lamanites were spread through the South Seas and all over the American Continent.  But there is the DNA issue that doesn't seem to support that claim.  I can see that it could be claimed that the DNA could have been diluted to almost none existence.  Any comments?   I don't follow these histories closely but am interested. 

 

What specific DNA issue are you talking about?

Blessings on descendants are not attached to DNA so to speak of diluted DNA doesn't make sense in the context of inheritance***, it is simply a method of tracking movement.  I am not sure what you are referring to in the above, so if you could clarify....

***No one looks at their kids (hopefully) and says the ones that have my eye and hair color will inherit while the rest of you can forget about it because you don't have enough of my DNA.  So why would it matter with grandkids or ten times removed grandkids?

 

Edited October 22, 2019 by Calm

[Sanpitch]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

What specific DNA issue are you talking about?

Blessings on descendants are not attached to DNA so to speak of diluted DNA doesn't make sense in the context of inheritance***, it is simply a method of tracking movement.  I am not sure what you are referring to in the above, so if you could clarify....

***No one looks at their kids (hopefully) and says the ones that have my eye and hair color will inherit while the rest of you can forget about it because you don't have enough of my DNA.  So why would it matter with grandkids or ten times removed grandkids?

 

I am thinking of descendance only, nothing to do with inheritance.  Just the question of where and who are the Lamanites? 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Sanpitch said:

I am thinking of descendance only, nothing to do with inheritance.  Just the question of where and who are the Lamanites? 

The BOM is a book of spiritual lessons to guide our lives, not a history text.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Sanpitch said:

I don't remember this issue being discussed recently.  If it hasn't been beaten to death, what is the current feeling of the Lamanites in the South Seas.  I vaguely remember, I think, Spenser W Kimball saying that the Lamanites were spread through the South Seas and all over the American Continent.  But there is the DNA issue that doesn't seem to support that claim.  I can see that it could be claimed that the DNA could have been diluted to almost none existence.  Any comments?   I don't follow these histories closely but am interested.

From Jesus' description in 3 Nephi 20, I think we can say that today's Lamanites are the surviving remnants of Jacob through Lehi and subsequently “this people” (of verse 10, who 400 years later became Lamanites with the fall of that civilization) which are scattered abroad upon the face of the earth. By referencing Isaiah, this includes the isles of the sea.

[CV75]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The BOM is a book of spiritual lessons to guide our lives, not a history text.

Yes, and so we can be Lamanites in spirit (as the "adopted" seed or priesthood of Abraham is also). Not that we are rebellious, but that the Lord has reserved His blessing for us and Book of Mormon was written for us: "Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentile... Which is to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever."

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Sanpitch said:

I can see that it could be claimed that the DNA could have been diluted to almost none existence. 

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) doesn't really have that issue.  You can trace maternal lines back a dozen generations without any change in mtDNA at all.  It is passed unchanged from mother to daughter.  Mutations can happen over time, but they are pretty dang rare.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-researchers-trace/

[mfbukowski]

41 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, and so we can be Lamanites in spirit (as the "adopted" seed or priesthood of Abraham is also). Not that we are rebellious, but that the Lord has reserved His blessing for us and Book of Mormon was written for us: "Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentile... Which is to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever."

Exactly! Virtually every discussion on this board totally misses the point that scripture is not about science or history.

No wonder the Anti's are doing so well in decimating the ranks.

Foolishness. Childish thinking.

It's so frustrating.

[Jake Starkey]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The BOM is a book of spiritual lessons to guide our lives, not a history text.

Thank you.  George Q. Cannon, in 1891, in the Juvenile Instructor, wrote that the BOM is not a history or geography text but a book of faith and testimony to Christ.

Edited October 22, 2019 by Jake Starkey

[Sanpitch]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

From FAIR:

I think DNA has some real limitations in what it can prove or disprove regarding The Book of Mormon.

Yep.  The above link has some quotes.

"The DNA issue" isn't dispositive either way.  

There are plenty of resources available on this topic.  Here are a few:

• Gospel Topics Essay: Book of Mormon and DNA Studies
• Jeff Lindsay: Does DNA evidence refute the Book of Mormon?
• FAIR: The Book of Mormon and DNA evidence

Thanks,

-Smac

Thank you Smac, those references look good.  It will take some time to go through them but I intend to read them all.

[2BizE]

Why do I recall Hagoth as being a Nephite rather than a Lamanite?

[Scott Lloyd]

The so-called “DNA argument” might be the most over-rated argument against the Book of Mormon in history. 

[Jake Starkey]

Hagoth was a Nephite builder of ships.  Alma 6:5-8.

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, Sanpitch said:

............... the Lamanites were spread through the South Seas and all over the American Continent.  But there is the DNA issue that doesn't seem to support that claim.  ...................

The archeological evidence is very strong -- Thor Heyerdahl, American Indians in the Pacific (1952), online at https://archive.org/details/AmericanIndiansPacificHeyerdahl/page/n5 , but there is also DNA evidence of some kind of connection:

Michael Le Page, “Indigenous peoples in the Amazon and Australia share some ancestry,” NewScientist, Nov 8, 2018, online at https://www.newscientist.com/article/2184840-indigenous-peoples-in-the-amazon-and-australia-share-some-ancestry/ , 

Charles Q. Choi (LiveScience), “Scientists find genetic link between Native Americans and Pacific Islanders,” Christian Science Monitor, July 22, 2015, online at https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2015/0722/Scientists-find-genetic-link-between-Native-Americans-and-Pacific-Islanders , 

Pontus Skoglund, et al., “Genetic evidence for two founding populations of the Americas,” Nature, 525 (Sept 3, 2015):104-108, online at https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14895 . 

Laura Geggel, “These First Americans Vanished Without a Trace — But Hints of Them Linger,” LiveScience, June 6, 2019, online at https://www.livescience.com/65649-paleo-american-genes-survive-today.html , 
 

[Rajah Manchou]

13 hours ago, Sanpitch said:

But there is the DNA issue that doesn't seem to support that claim.  I can see that it could be claimed that the DNA could have been diluted to almost none existence.  Any comments?   I don't follow these histories closely but am interested. 

DNA wouldn't be diluted on the isolated islands across the Pacific Ocean. There was hardly any admixture in Oceania until the Europeans arrived in the 16th century. Once Magellan set out across the Pacific for the first time we immediately see the genetic impact. For example, in Guam:

Chamorros have Native American ancestors

There is no question that Pacific Islanders have their origins in East/Southeast Asia:

‘Game-changing’ study suggests first Polynesians voyaged all the way from East Asia

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, 2BizE said:

Why do I recall Hagoth as being a Nephite rather than a Lamanite?

They were all Lehites. Eventually, Lamanite/Nephite divisions were religious and political, not familial.

 

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The so-called “DNA argument” might be the most over-rated argument against the Book of Mormon in history. 

Right up there with adieu.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

DNA wouldn't be diluted on the isolated islands across the Pacific Ocean. There was hardly any admixture in Oceania until the Europeans arrived in the 16th century. Once Magellan set out across the Pacific for the first time we immediately see the genetic impact. For example, in Guam:

Chamorros have Native American ancestors

There is no question that Pacific Islanders have their origins in East/Southeast Asia:

‘Game-changing’ study suggests first Polynesians voyaged all the way from East Asia

Consider the possibility that there were already much larger populations of indigenous peoples in the Pacific islands among which Hagoth’s people and their descendants intermarried. Within a few generations, descendancy from Lehi could be dispersed throughout populations — enough for them to inherit the spiritual blessings — with there being little or no DNA evidence to show it. 

Edited October 23, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Right up there with adieu.

DNA has the advantage over adieu in this respect: Like other instances of sophistry, it can look and sound smart to the casual or uninitiated observer. Adieu, on the other hand, is simply dumb. No sophisticated anti-Mormon engages in it. 

[longview]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Consider the possibility that there were already much larger populations of indigenous peoples in the Pacific islands among which Hagoth’s people and their descendants intermarried. Within a few generations, descendancy from Lehi could be dispersed throughout populations — enough for them to inherit the spiritual blessings — with there being little or no DNA evidence to show it. 

If so, scholars might do a study of language mergers and shifting around the islands?  Cognates and whatnot?  The Asian influence on indigenous peoples before the arrival of the Hagoth expedition?  See https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/an-american-indian-language-family-with-middle-eastern-loanwords-responding-to-a-recent-critique/

[Jake Starkey]

11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

They were all Lehites. Eventually, Lamanite/Nephite divisions were religious and political, not familial.

 

I am sure Hagoth had some Lehite genetic material.  But the children of Lehi and their descendents may have married into other tribes and groups by then almost 600 years after leaving Jerusalem.

I am an American with Norwegian, Swedish, Dutch, and French, plus some Native American, ancestry, yet I am American.  Hagoth was Nephite or Lamanite or whateverite terms the writes of the BOM were using to categorize individuals and peoples.

Edited October 23, 2019 by Jake Starkey

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Jake Starkey said:

I am sure Hagoth had some Lehite genetic material.  But the children of Lehi and their descendents may have married into other tribes and groups by then almost 600 years after leaving Jerusalem.

I am an American with Norwegian, Swedish, Dutch, and French, plus some Native American, ancestry, yet I am American.  Hagoth was Nephite or Lamanite or whateverite terms the writes of the BOM were using to categorize individuals and peoples.

Finding evidence of those "others" who intermarried with the Lehites is the quest of many apologists and critics, isn't it. Do you have some knowledge of Hagoth's lineage?

As late as 25 AD there were still people claiming to be pure descendants of Lehi.

 

Edited October 23, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Robert F. Smith]

It turns out that Melanesians have both Denisovan and Neanderthal ancestry (moreso than any other humans) https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/10/long-stretches-of-neanderthal-and-denisovan-dna-helped-homo-sapiens-adapt/ , but also some genetic relationship to Polynesians:

Quote

Paternal Y chromosome analysis by Kayser et al. (2000) also showed that Polynesians have significant Melanesian genetic admixture.[17] A follow-up study by Kayser et al. (2008) discovered that only 21% of the Polynesian autosomal gene pool is of Melanesian origin, with the rest (79%) being of East Asian origin.[18] A study by Friedlaender et al. (2008) confirmed that Polynesians are closer genetically to Micronesians, Taiwanese Aborigines, and East Asians, than to Melanesians. The study concluded that Polynesians moved through Melanesia fairly rapidly, allowing only limited admixture between Austronesians and Melanesians.[19] Thus, the high frequencies of B4a1a1 are the result of drift and represent the descendants of a very few successful East Asian females.[20]  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanesians .

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

As late as 25 AD there were still people claiming to be pure descendants of Lehi.

 

Which is textual evidence as everyone would have had to have been pure descendants if they hadn't intermarried, correct?

But what does "pure descendants" mean anyway?  Since the four brothers married into Ishamel's family, there was more than just DNA/bloodline from Lehi and Sariah in the system from the start.  Even if Jacob and Joseph married their brother's daughters, any grandchildren of Lehi were also grand or great grandchildren of Ishmael and his wife.

Edited October 23, 2019 by Calm