Polynesia Populated from S.E. Asia NOT the America's in Direct Conflict with LDS Tradition

[Fair Dinkum]

It's long been known that the Islands of the Pacific were populated by a seafaring people migrating out of South East Asia not the America's.  Further studies have only doubled down on this reality.  All scientific specialties including DNA, Archeology, Palaeobotany, Paleolinguistics to name just a few, all support this SE Asian migration.  Other then some South American DNA that was introduced after the Book of Mormon timeline, in approximately 1200 AD and the sweet potato and gord, see here there is little to no reason we should refer to Pacific Islanders as Laminates.

A new study just released in Nature seen here adds further support for this migration from south east Asia and not from the Americas.

The evidence seems overwhelming that Pacific Islanders are not descendants of Lehi, in direct conflict with LDS tradition.  The church seems to have supplanted the actual culture of the Pacific Islanders with one found in the Book of Mormon of which this island population had no connection to.

What if any evidence is there, other than that which I've shared, that would support our LDS tradition? If it exists, I would like to see it.  Otherwise is it time for the church to just admit they were wrong and give these people back their true identity and culture?

More Here

Edited September 23, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[Raingirl]

Oh look, another thread from FD finding an excuse to criticize the church. Big surprise. 

[ttribe]

4 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

Oh look, another thread from FD finding an excuse to criticize the church. Big surprise. 

Why not address the issue, rather than the person?

[Fair Dinkum]

58 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

Oh look, another thread from FD finding an excuse to criticize the church. Big surprise. 

It's easy to attack me rather than the question I ask.  Do you have anything to add to the OP or only criticize me asking the questions?

[Fair Dinkum]

1 hour ago, Raingirl said:

Oh look, another thread from FD finding an excuse to criticize the church. Big surprise. 

Also why, especially when the claims of the church are in conflict with the accepted science, is it considered the church being criticized?  Should the church have to explain these obvious conflicts or should we just ignore them and make believe that they don't exist?  Remember the church claims to be the promoter of Truth.  If they are shown to be wrong and teaching something that is not true, would they not want to know that they are teaching something that is not true so that they can correct what they are teaching and maintain their credibility?

Edited September 23, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[smac97]

On 9/23/2021 at 9:39 AM, ttribe said:

Why not address the issue, rather than the person?

Raingirl's "gripe fatigue" is understandable.  But you raise a fair point.  So let's "address the issue."

1. Wikipedia has a fairly extensive entry about Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories.  

2. In 1993 Stephen Jett published this article in BYU Studies: Before Columbus: The Question of Early Transoceanic Interinfluences.  In this article Jett notes that this area of scholarly inquiry "is an extremely controversial area of research," and that "{t}here is a great deal of resistance even to talking about the idea of significant long-distance contacts prior to the time of Columbus."   Was he correct?  Has the scholarly landscape changed since then?  Might such controversy dissuade research, scholarly publications, etc. about this topic?

3. Jett's article also cited a 1990 two-volume publication John L. Sorenson and Martin H. Raish: Pre-Columbian Contact with the Americas across the Oceans: An Annotated Bibliography.  (The link is to a review by William Hamblin.)

4. In 1986 John L. Sorenson and Carl L. Johannessen published Scientific Evidence for Pre-Columbian Transoceanic Voyages To and From the Americas.  

5. FD rather curiously notes: "Other than some South American DNA that was introduced after the Book of Mormon timeline, in approximately 1200 AD and the sweet potato and gord, see here there is little to no reason we should refer to Pacific Islanders as Lamanites."  Are we sure all the data are in, though?  For example, consider this excerpt from a July 2020 National Geographic article:

Quote

Native Americans and Polynesians were in contact across the Pacific Ocean centuries before Europeans entered Polynesian waters, according to a new study published today the journal Nature. Moreover, this initial interaction likely occurred before people settled on Rapa Nui (also known as Easter Island)—the Polynesian island closest to the South American coast that was once thought to be a likely point of contact between the two groups.

Pre-Columbian mingling of Polynesians and Native Americans has long been a subject of debate, one made famous in pop culture by Norwegian adventurer Thor Heyerdahl. In 1947, Heyerdahl embarked on his Kon-Tiki expedition, drifting from Peru to Polynesia on a handmade raft in an attempt to prove that people from the Americas could have populated Pacific islands. Heyerdahl’s controversial theories on the origin of ancient Pacific seafarers cast a taboo over the subject, and many archaeologists have dismissed his ideas.

...
A 2014 study of the DNA of 27 people from Rapa Nui found that about 8 percent of their genetic makeup came from Native American ancestors. Those earlier findings suggested that the two groups mixed as early as A.D. 1340, centuries before Europeans first made contact with the Rapa Nui residents in 1722 and, later, violently raided their island for slaves.

For the new study, an international multidisciplinary team looked at the genomes of more than 800 individuals from 17 different Polynesian islands, including Rapa Nui, as well as 15 different coastal Indigenous groups in South America. "Previous studies have been only focusing on the possibility of [Rapa Nui] being the point of contact," says senior author Andrés Moreno-Estrada, a geneticist at Mexico’s National Laboratory of Genomics for Biodiversity. "We opened the question to explore other options in the Pacific."

The researchers found that contact between Polynesian individuals and a Native American group related to present-day Indigenous people in Colombia occurred as early as A.D. 1150—two centuries earlier than indicated by the 2014 DNA study. The place where the researchers could detect the earliest sign of contact was in Fatu Hiva, an island in the South Marquesas. Fatu Hiva is much farther from South America than Rapa Nui, but it could be more easily reached than Rapa Nui due to favorable trade winds and currents, notes archaeologist Paul Wallin of Uppsala University in an editorial accompanying the study in Nature.

Huh.  So further research shifted the date of contact "two centuries earlier than indicated by the 2014 DNA study."  Again, is it possible that not all the data are in?  Or that we do not have a full and complete understanding of transoceanic migrations between Polynesia and the Americas?  

And again, this article notes that "{p}re-Columbian mingling of Polynesians and Native Americans has long been a subject of debate."  

6. In 2005 John L. Sorenson published Ancient Voyages Across the Ocean to America: From “Impossible” to “Certain.”  From the abstract:

Quote

In the past, experts have assumed that primitive sailors would have found it impossible to cross the oceans between the Old World and the New. However, John Sorenson here concludes that the evidence for transoceanic contacts now drowns out the arguments of those who have seen the New World as an isolated island until ad 1492. Sorenson’s arguments are based on evidences from Europe, Asia, and Polynesia of the diffusion of New World plants and infectious organisms. His research identifies evidence for transoceanic exchanges of 98 plant species, including tobacco and peanuts. The presence of hookworm in both the Americas and the Old World before Columbus also serves as evidence to establish transoceanic contact.

7. Evidencecentral.org has a good article on this topic: Book of Mormon Evidence: Ancient Transoceanic Migrations.  An excerpt:

Quote

In the past, claims of pre-Columbian transoceanic contact with the Americas were often met with skepticism. With few exceptions, such as the Viking contact with coastal Canada during the 11th century AD or possible Polynesian contact with South America,⁵ many North American scholars have dismissed such claims as outlandish and lacking concrete historical or archaeological evidence.⁶ While this skeptical paradigm has persisted in many academic circles, scholars in growing numbers have argued for extensive pre-Columbian transoceanic contacts. 

John L. Sorenson is one such scholar whose lifelong work on pre-Columbian transoceanic contacts has appeared in reputable Latter-day Saint and non-Latter-day Saint scholarly venues.⁷ Besides arguing for transoceanic contact himself, Sorenson and Martin H. Raish have cataloged an extensive bibliography of academic work that supports the same position.⁸

“It is clear,” Sorenson and Raish argue, “that the technological capacity for transoceanic voyaging has been available at a number of points in the Old World many times in the past. It is both plausible and probable on nautical grounds that numerous voyagers crossed the oceans at multiple points before the age of modern discovery.”⁹ To support his claims, Sorenson offers abundant biological evidence of transoceanic contacts as well as cultural parallels between peoples of the Old and New Worlds.¹⁰ Other fields, such as linguistics, are further strengthening the case for early oceanic migrations.¹¹

 

As argued by Sorenson, “The long-demanded ‘hard evidence’ … for transoceanic contact now provides overwhelming proof that ancient voyagers made numerous effective contacts across the oceans with significant consequences for the recipient societies.”¹² When viewed in light of this emerging paradigm shift, the three transoceanic migrations recorded in the Book of Mormon can be seen as part of a larger pattern of intercontinental exchange which shaped the cultures and environment of the ancient Americas.

While this recent data doesn’t prove the historical accuracy of the specific migrations mentioned in the Book of Mormon, it shows that there is no longer reason to assume that such ancient oceanic crossings were out of the question. The Book of Mormon’s accounts of transoceanic voyages are becoming increasingly plausible over time. 

8. BookofMormonCentral.org has a good article from 2016: Did Ancient People Sail the Seas?  Some excerpts:

Quote

Lest one think that Sorenson is overstating his case, Michael D. Coe, an eminent authority of Mesoamerica, stated in a 2011 interview about the Book of Mormon: “I’m not entirely against the idea of transoceanic contacts [between the Old and New Worlds]. In fact, there is beginning to be evidence for it. The leading scholar of this kind of stuff is a Mormon, a friend of mine, John Sorenson, at BYU, who has written extensively on this whole thing—very interesting stuff.” 8

In a letter written to Sorenson regarding his work on transoceanic contact, Coe said, “It’s an enormously impressive piece of scholarship,” and even went so far as to say, “So much of this evidence, I think, is irrefutable.”9 These comments show considerable respect within the academic community for Sorenson’s paradigm-shifting research.

A few thoughts:

A) Finding the foregoing articles took literally less than five minutes.  These materials are readily and freely findable and available, and have been for many years.

B) The foregoing materials are illustrative (they are just the first few at the top of the google search I did) they in turn cite to extensive evidence and further citations to other scholarly articles and materials.

C) Notwithstanding the ease of access to these materials, Fair Dinkum summarily declares that "Polynesia Populated from S.E. Asia NOT the America's in Direct Conflict with LDS Tradition" and (obviously rhetorically) asks "is it time for the church to just admit they were wrong and give these people back their true identity and culture?"

D) Notwithstanding the ease of access to these materials, Fair Dinkum asks: "What if any evidence is there, other than that which I've shared, that would support our LDS tradition? If it exists, I would like to see it."  

E) I admit I have a difficult time understanding the apparent malaise, even nihilistic skepticism, that seems to foment the litany of threads that by content and design are looking for reasons to not believe, to not look for plausible grounds for faith in the Restoration.  Even to the extent of deliberately obfuscating about, and/or refusing to expend even a little effort to locate, materials like those listed above.  Look at the opening post.  FD can't even be bothered to spend five minutes on Google, and instead comes here and asks us to present "evidence ... that would support our LDS tradition."  If he can't be bothered to spend five minutes on Google to find these materials, what are the chances that he would be willing to spend the considerably more extensive amounts of time and effort to actually read these materials?  To give them a fair hearing?  To read the other materials cited in them?  To perhaps contact John Sorenson or other scholars who have particularized expertise in this area of research (I contacted Dr. Kerry Muhlestein last year and asked him a few narrow questions, and he was quite happy and willing to respond)?  To pair these efforts with personal study, pondering, prayer, etc. to seek personal revelation and guidance as to these and associated questions about the truth claims of the Church?

F) This year I will be celebrating my 25th anniversary to my wonderful wife.  She is a very good person.  However, I have known many other couples who have likewise had seemingly strong marriages that break down.  If I was bound and determined to destroy my marriage, I would do what Fair Dinkum is doing here.  I would I would utterly refuse to consider any of my wife's many fine attributes, and would instead emphasize and magnify her every actual or apparent weakness/flaw.  I would not listen to her, or to anyone else speaking on her behalf.  I would refuse to consider any evidence or reasoning that could dissuade me from my intention of destroying our marriage.  I would not listen to any friends and family who might have something good to say about her.

Would pursuing this course of conduct be indicative of whether a divorce is appropriate?  No.  It is not remotely reflective of any reasoned analysis or fair-minded evaluation of things.  There may well be legitimate grounds for divorce, but the foregoing course of conduct will not help me identify them. 

FD, I feel for you, bro.  I hope you have a change of heart.  I hope you give the Restored Gospel a fair hearing.  Your endless series of threads like this one are not the way to go.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

 

Edited September 27, 2021 by smac97

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Raingirls "gripe fatigue" is understandable.  But you raise a fair point.  So let's "address the issue."

1. Wikipedia has a fairly extensive entry about Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories.  

2. In 1993 Stephen Jett published this article in BYU Studies: Before Columbus: The Question of Early Transoceanic Interinfluences.  In this article Jett notes that this area of scholarly inquiry "is an extremely controversial area of research," and that "{t}here is a great deal of resistance even to talking about the idea of significant long-distance contacts prior to the time of Columbus."   Was he correct?  Has the scholarly landscape changed since then?  Might such controversy dissuade research, scholarly publications, etc. about this topic?

3. Jett's article also cited a 1990 two-volume publication John L. Sorenson and Martin H. Raish: Pre-Columbian Contact with the Americas across the Oceans: An Annotated Bibliography.  (The link is to a review by William Hamblin.)

4. In 1986 John L. Sorenson and Carl L. Johannessen published Scientific Evidence for Pre-Columbian Transoceanic Voyages To and From the Americas.  

5. FD rather curiously notes: "Other than some South American DNA that was introduced after the Book of Mormon timeline, in approximately 1200 AD and the sweet potato and gord, see here there is little to no reason we should refer to Pacific Islanders as Lamanites."  Are we sure all the data are in, though?  For example, consider this excerpt from a July 2020 National Geographic article:

Huh.  So further research shifted the date of contact "two centuries earlier than indicated by the 2014 DNA study."  Again, is it possible that not all the data are in?  Or that we do not have a full and complete understanding of transoceanic migrations between Polynesia and the Americas?  

And again, this article notes that "{p}re-Columbian mingling of Polynesians and Native Americans has long been a subject of debate."  

6. In 2005 John L. Sorenson published Ancient Voyages Across the Ocean to America: From “Impossible” to “Certain.”  From the abstract:

7. Evidencecentral.org has a good article on this topic: Book of Mormon Evidence: Ancient Transoceanic Migrations.  An excerpt:

8. BookofMormonCentral.org has a good article from 2016: Did Ancient People Sail the Seas?  Some excerpts:

A few thoughts:

A) Finding the foregoing articles took literally less than five minutes.  These materials are readily and freely findable and available, and have been for many years.

B) The foregoing materials are illustrative (they are just the first few at the top of the google search I did) they in turn cite to extensive evidence and further citations to other scholarly articles and materials.

C) Notwithstanding the ease of access to these materials, Fair Dinkum summarily declares that "Polynesia Populated from S.E. Asia NOT the America's in Direct Conflict with LDS Tradition" and (obviously rhetorically) asks "is it time for the church to just admit they were wrong and give these people back their true identity and culture?"

D) Notwithstanding the ease of access to these materials, Fair Dinkum asks: "What if any evidence is there, other than that which I've shared, that would support our LDS tradition? If it exists, I would like to see it."  

E) I admit I have a difficult time understanding the apparent malaise, even nihilistic skepticism, that seems to foment the litany of threads that by content and design are looking for reasons to not believe, to not look for plausible grounds for faith in the Restoration.  Even to the extent of deliberately obfuscating about, and/or refusing to expend even a little effort to locate, materials like those listed above.  Look at the opening post.  FD can't even be bothered to spend five minutes on Google, and instead comes here and asks us to present "evidence ... that would support our LDS tradition."  If he can't be bothered to spend five minutes on Google to find these materials, what are the chances that he would be willing to spend the considerably more extensive amounts of time and effort to actually read these materials?  To give them a fair hearing?  To read the other materials cited in them?  To perhaps contact John Sorenson or other scholars who have particularized expertise in this area of research (I contacted Dr. Kerry Muhlestein last year and asked him a few narrow questions, and he was quite happy and willing to respond)?  To pair these efforts with personal study, pondering, prayer, etc. to seek personal revelation and guidance as to these and associated questions about the truth claims of the Church?

F) This year I will be celebrating my 25th anniversary to my wonderful wife.  She is a very good person.  However, I have known many other couples who have likewise had seemingly strong marriages that break down.  If I was bound and determined to destroy my marriage, I would do what Fair Dinkum is doing here.  I would I would utterly refuse to consider any of her many fine attributes, and would instead emphasize and magnify her every actual or apparent weakness/flaw.  I would not listen to her.  I would refuse to consider any evidence or reasoning that could dissuade me from my intention of destroying our marriage.  I would not listen to any friends and family who might have something good to say about her.

Would pursuing this course of conduct be indicative of whether a divorce is appropriate?  No.  It is not remotely reflective of any reasoned analysis or fair-minded evaluation of things.  There may well be legitimate grounds for divorce, but the foregoing course of conduct will not help me identify them. 

FD, I feel for you, bro.  I hope you have a change of heart.  I hope you give the Restored Gospel a fair hearing.  Your endless series of threads like this one are not the way to go.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

 

How does the old scholarship that you highlighted hold up against the new scholarship just barely published that FD linked to in the OP? I think that's the issue at the heart of his questions.

[Tacenda]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

How does the old scholarship that you highlighted hold up against the new scholarship just barely published that FD linked to in the OP? I think that's the issue at the heart of his questions.

Thanks for pointing that out!

[Fair Dinkum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Raingirls "gripe fatigue" is understandable.  But you raise a fair point.  So let's "address the issue."

1. Wikipedia has a fairly extensive entry about Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories.  

2. In 1993 Stephen Jett published this article in BYU Studies: Before Columbus: The Question of Early Transoceanic Interinfluences.  In this article Jett notes that this area of scholarly inquiry "is an extremely controversial area of research," and that "{t}here is a great deal of resistance even to talking about the idea of significant long-distance contacts prior to the time of Columbus."   Was he correct?  Has the scholarly landscape changed since then?  Might such controversy dissuade research, scholarly publications, etc. about this topic?

3. Jett's article also cited a 1990 two-volume publication John L. Sorenson and Martin H. Raish: Pre-Columbian Contact with the Americas across the Oceans: An Annotated Bibliography.  (The link is to a review by William Hamblin.)

4. In 1986 John L. Sorenson and Carl L. Johannessen published Scientific Evidence for Pre-Columbian Transoceanic Voyages To and From the Americas.  

5. FD rather curiously notes: "Other than some South American DNA that was introduced after the Book of Mormon timeline, in approximately 1200 AD and the sweet potato and gord, see here there is little to no reason we should refer to Pacific Islanders as Lamanites."  Are we sure all the data are in, though?  For example, consider this excerpt from a July 2020 National Geographic article:

Huh.  So further research shifted the date of contact "two centuries earlier than indicated by the 2014 DNA study."  Again, is it possible that not all the data are in?  Or that we do not have a full and complete understanding of transoceanic migrations between Polynesia and the Americas?  

And again, this article notes that "{p}re-Columbian mingling of Polynesians and Native Americans has long been a subject of debate."  

6. In 2005 John L. Sorenson published Ancient Voyages Across the Ocean to America: From “Impossible” to “Certain.”  From the abstract:

7. Evidencecentral.org has a good article on this topic: Book of Mormon Evidence: Ancient Transoceanic Migrations.  An excerpt:

8. BookofMormonCentral.org has a good article from 2016: Did Ancient People Sail the Seas?  Some excerpts:

A few thoughts:

A) Finding the foregoing articles took literally less than five minutes.  These materials are readily and freely findable and available, and have been for many years.

B) The foregoing materials are illustrative (they are just the first few at the top of the google search I did) they in turn cite to extensive evidence and further citations to other scholarly articles and materials.

C) Notwithstanding the ease of access to these materials, Fair Dinkum summarily declares that "Polynesia Populated from S.E. Asia NOT the America's in Direct Conflict with LDS Tradition" and (obviously rhetorically) asks "is it time for the church to just admit they were wrong and give these people back their true identity and culture?"

D) Notwithstanding the ease of access to these materials, Fair Dinkum asks: "What if any evidence is there, other than that which I've shared, that would support our LDS tradition? If it exists, I would like to see it."  

E) I admit I have a difficult time understanding the apparent malaise, even nihilistic skepticism, that seems to foment the litany of threads that by content and design are looking for reasons to not believe, to not look for plausible grounds for faith in the Restoration.  Even to the extent of deliberately obfuscating about, and/or refusing to expend even a little effort to locate, materials like those listed above.  Look at the opening post.  FD can't even be bothered to spend five minutes on Google, and instead comes here and asks us to present "evidence ... that would support our LDS tradition."  If he can't be bothered to spend five minutes on Google to find these materials, what are the chances that he would be willing to spend the considerably more extensive amounts of time and effort to actually read these materials?  To give them a fair hearing?  To read the other materials cited in them?  To perhaps contact John Sorenson or other scholars who have particularized expertise in this area of research (I contacted Dr. Kerry Muhlestein last year and asked him a few narrow questions, and he was quite happy and willing to respond)?  To pair these efforts with personal study, pondering, prayer, etc. to seek personal revelation and guidance as to these and associated questions about the truth claims of the Church?

F) This year I will be celebrating my 25th anniversary to my wonderful wife.  She is a very good person.  However, I have known many other couples who have likewise had seemingly strong marriages that break down.  If I was bound and determined to destroy my marriage, I would do what Fair Dinkum is doing here.  I would I would utterly refuse to consider any of her many fine attributes, and would instead emphasize and magnify her every actual or apparent weakness/flaw.  I would not listen to her.  I would refuse to consider any evidence or reasoning that could dissuade me from my intention of destroying our marriage.  I would not listen to any friends and family who might have something good to say about her.

Would pursuing this course of conduct be indicative of whether a divorce is appropriate?  No.  It is not remotely reflective of any reasoned analysis or fair-minded evaluation of things.  There may well be legitimate grounds for divorce, but the foregoing course of conduct will not help me identify them. 

FD, I feel for you, bro.  I hope you have a change of heart.  I hope you give the Restored Gospel a fair hearing.  Your endless series of threads like this one are not the way to go.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

 

I appreciate your taking time from your busy schedule to reply to my post.  I guess what I would like to see is evidence that supports the traditional LDS narrative of contact between Native American indigenous populations and Polynesians within the Book of Mormon timeline. Something that would support the church being able to refer to Polynesians as Lamanites.  I remind you that our traditions hold that the Pacific Islands were populated by people immigrating from America and not from SE Asia. That claim has basically been reduced to now only being able to say that well there was contact in outside of the BoM timeline. Nothing supports a mass migration sweeping west from America.

Edited September 23, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[Kenngo1969]

@Fair Dinkum

Oh, Learned One, do not be angry, I pray Thee, with Thy servant.  Thy intellect and thy erudition so far surpass my own that I dare not point this out, lest Thou smite me with the wrath of Thy brilliance.

That said, "Americas" is plural, not possessive, so it does not take an apostrophe.

That is all.  We now return you to your regularly-scheduled, on-topic programming.

[Fair Dinkum]

8 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

@Fair Dinkum

Oh, Learned One, do not be angry, I pray Thee, with Thy servant.  Thy intellect and thy erudition so far surpass my own that I dare not point this out, lest Thou smite me with the wrath of Thy brilliance.

That said, "Americas" is plural, not possessive, so it does not take an apostrophe.

That is all.  We now return you to your regularly-scheduled, on-topic programming.

Come up for air sometime that basement must get stuffy.  https://www.sciencealert.com/people-who-pick-up-grammar-mistakes-jerks-scientists-find  posted with love and the same playful intent as your post. 🙂

[rchorse]

There are all sorts of traditions in the church that may or may not be correct. I'm not sure why it matters if this one is accurate or not. The Book of Mormon itself does not identify Polynesians as Book of Mormon people. That some or even many prominent leaders have held that opinion doesn't obligate me to agree. I'm not sure it's any more doctrinal than a lot of the tripe that came from Saturday's Warrior, but a lot of people loved that, too.

As for me, I don't think there's enough evidence on either side of the issue to even establish anything more than a very tentative leaning one way or the other. The same can be said of most of the of "gotchas" that people trot out against the church and its scriptures.

[bOObOO]

32 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I appreciate your taking time from your busy schedule to reply to my post.  I guess what I would like to see is evidence that supports the traditional LDS narrative of contact between Native American indigenous populations and Polynesians within the Book of Mormon timeline. Something that would support the church being able to refer to Polynesians as Lamanites.  I remind you that our traditions hold that the Pacific Islands were populated by people immigrating from America and not from SE Asia. That claim has basically been reduced to now only being able to say that well there was contact in outside of the BoM timeline. Nothing supports a mass migration sweeping west from America.

The migration of some Lamanites need not have occurred within the Book of Mormon timeline for us to be able to correctly refer to those migrators as Lamanites.  The term Lamanites would correctly refer to any descendants of Laman (or others who were also called Lamanites in the Book of Mormon) regardless of when they were born as descendants of their ancestors who we refer to as Lamanites.  Like for example if some descendants of Lamanites (who we could also refer to as Lamanites) migrated to the Polynesian or Hawaiian islands anytime after 400 A.D. (which we generally consider to be the end of the Book of Mormon timeline), those descendants of those Lamanites would still be Lamanites even if they didn't migrate until around 1100 or 1200 or 1400 or 1600 or anytime after that.   So all we need is any indication that there were people from any part of the Americas who migrated to any of the islands in the Pacific, or anywhere else, rather than every one of them staying somewhere in the Americas. 

[smac97]

57 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I appreciate your taking time from your busy schedule to reply to my post.  I guess what I would like to see is evidence that supports the traditional LDS narrative of contact between Native American indigenous populations and Polynesians within the Book of Mormon timeline.

I think there is a lot of such evidence out there.  I think it's less of the "smoking gun" variety which I think you prefer and expect, and more of the "yes, the BOM narrative about small groups of transoceanic migrants is plausible" variety.

57 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Something that would support the church being able to refer to Polynesians as Lamanites. 

Have you reviewed any of the materials I provided?  If not, why not?

57 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I remind you that our traditions hold that the Pacific Islands were populated by people immigrating from America and not from SE Asia.

That's a substantial mischaracterization.  There is nothing in "our traditions" that excludes populations "from SE Asia."  There is nothing in "our traditions" that limit the Polynesians to "people immigrating from America."

I commented on this last year:

Quote

Aussiguy wrote this:

Quote

Simon Southerton has a new ebook out on DNA and the Book of Mormon   https://simonsoutherton.com/

He writes "Since publishing my book, Mormon apologists have attacked me personally. They have questioned my intelligence and scientific credentials, my motives and my knowledge of what the Book of Mormon really says. They have exaggerated the limitations of DNA science, obscured the true facts it has revealed and even made false claims of positive evidence. They have also twisted the Book of Mormon narrative into a bizarre story that reduces the Lamanites to a sideshow anywhere you like in the New World. For Pete's sake! Ancestry.com knows Native Americans don't have Jewish DNA."

Can we respond without the personal stuff.

So here's what Southeron says at the above link:

Quote

For 190 years, The Mormon Church has taught that Native Americans and Polynesians are descended from ancient seafaring Israelites.

First, this sounds like Southerton is talking about generalized teachings about the text of the Book of Mormon, rather than the text itself.  Latter-day Saint apologists are, in the main, not fixated on so-called "Lamanite DNA." Critics (most notably Southerton and Murphy) have, I think, hung their hats almost exclusively on extra-textual arguments about the Book of Mormon (i.e. the Introduction's reference to "principal ancestors," culled comments from LDS leaders, etc.) and have largely ignored the actual text of the book itself. They have also tried to posit DNA as the definitive falsifying factor of the Book of Mormon when the subject is obviously much more complex than that (adoptive lineage, heritage-as-lineage, plus the arguments set forth in the FARMS Review and elsewhere (see below) that DNA can neither prove nor disprove the Book of Mormon). 

Second, he is really simplifying the Church's perspective on this issue, nearly to the point of absurdity.  There has been a lot of scholarship on this issue published in the last many years (see, e.g., here and here), and Southerton appears to be ignoring essentially all of it.  Before I spent $7.50 on Southerton's new book, I'd like to know if this is so.

Third, Latter-day Saints are, I think, far more flexible and reasonable in their thinking on this matter than the critics (who have been decidedly fundementalistic about it). These critics will, most likely, cast such flexibility as dishonesty, disengenuousness, etc., but that's to be expected, I suppose.

Fourth, whoever wrote Ecclesiastes 1:9 must have had Southerton's approach in mind: "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun."  Anti-Mormons are so boring these days.  Re-tread upon re-tread. They make no attempt to seriously engage LDS thought on the topics about which they pontificate (see below).  There is nothing new under the (anti-Mormon) sun.

Fifth, Southerton was I think at his most astute when he said this (in 2006 or so): 

Quote

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.

This is a distilled version of the "science" of this topic, and Southerton gets it right.  I appreciate that he acknowledged this.  However, in the very next sentece he stops talking about "science" and starts delving into . . . something else:

Quote

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.

That's not "science."

Fast forward to 2013 (same link):

Quote

Mesoamerican apologist Daniel Peterson immediately seized on the bolded portion of my statement, proclaiming widely in apologetic circles that Southerton has conceded that DNA is unlikely to ever be able to detect Lehite DNA. My comment was a reasonable observation at the time (2006) given the limitations of the mitochondrial and Y-DNA studies, but it is no longer correct. 

Let's suspend disbelief for a moment and consider that the apologist are on to something, and all the prophets have been misguided. Lehi and his small band colonize a restricted region of the Americas. The Book of Mormon records that  Lehi's descendants multiplied exceedingly and spread upon the face of the land. Their Middle Eastern nuclear DNA would have spread, over the last 3,000 years, throughout adjacent populations like a drop of ink in a bucket of water. At the very least their genes would have spread over many hundreds of kilometres. It would be exceedingly unlikely that their genomic DNA would go extinct and scientists exploring the genomes of Native Americans would stumble on it if it was there. But apparently the Lamanite generation, along with their genes, are nowhere to be found beyond the pages of the Book of Mormon.   

Again, this is sort of boring.  Until and unless Southerton engages the substantive scholarship on this issue, I'm not really interested in what he has to say (since it seems to be mere variation on what he said 10+ years ago).

(Also, what is a "Mesoamerican apologist"?  Daniel Peterson is an American professor of Islamic Studies at BYU.  He was born and raised in California.)

Book of Mormon Central has a very good treatment of this issue:

Quote

Why Hasn’t Lehi’s DNA Been Found?

The Know

In recent decades, some people have wondered if DNA might provide any insight into Book of Mormon origins. Among these, some have proclaimed that DNA science definitively disproves the Book of Mormon,1 while others have declared just the opposite, arguing that there is positive DNA evidence supporting the Book of Mormon.2 In 2014, the Church published an essay on LDS.org explaining the most rigorous thinking, current science, and the complicated issues related to testing the Book of Mormon using DNA.3 As explained in that essay, the actual science is more complicated than both of these extreme views have supposed.

To date, genetic studies indicate that Native Americans are most closely related to East Asians,4 while no clear genetic relationship with the Middle East has been established.5 However, the best available DNA data has several limitations,6 making it likely that the migrations mentioned in the Book of Mormon would go unnoticed genetically.7 A key factor is that the Americas were already populated when Book of Mormon peoples first arrived. There is strong evidence that Book of Mormon peoples likely interacted with indigenous peoples almost immediately,8 forever complicating efforts to trace the DNA lineages of Jared, Lehi, Mulek, and their co-travelers.

One important limitation is the simple fact that no one knows what Jared’s, Lehi’s, or Mulek’s DNA actually looked like.9 Simply assuming it looked like DNA from the modern Middle East can be deeply misleading. A common problem in population genetics, known as founder effect, appears when the founders of a population had atypical genetic markers for the region they came from. For instance, an LDS geneticist from Italy found that his paternal genetic marker was more typical of East Asian ancestry. If something similar was the case with the founders of Book of Mormon populations, identifying their descendants using DNA would be impossible.10

Even if Jared’s, Mulek’s, and Lehi’s DNA were typical of the regions of their origins, the reality is that most genetic information from the past does not survive into present populations. Most DNA studies on Native Americans are dependent upon DNA markers which pass from one generation to the next along paternal and maternal lines. Because such markers do not get mixed from one generation to the next, these lineages are easy to trace back several generations. However, in total they only represent 0.01 percent of a person’s DNA.11

Chart showing how Y-Chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA are only represented by a small portion of a person's ancestry. Image by Book of Mormon Central.

Since these DNA markers only follow the maternal and paternal lineages, they leave out a lot about a person’s ancestry. For example, if one goes back 10 generations (only a couple hundred years in the past), they will have 1,024 ancestors in the tenth generation. However, the paternal and maternal DNA markers would only be able to detect one (for women) or two (for men) of these ancestors. This remains true even as the number of ancestors grows larger with each successive generation, meaning that the further back in time one goes, the less representative these markers become.12

Naturally, given these numbers, most maternal and paternal genetic signatures disappear from the gene pool over time in a process known as genetic drift. Scientists estimate that every 20 generations, only 2 out of 18 genetic signatures survive.13 According to John M. Butler, a forensic DNA scientist, “the majority of the people living today in Iceland had ancestors living only 150 years ago that could not be detected based on the [patrilineal and matrilineal] DNA … yet the genealogical records exist showing that these people lived and were real ancestors.”14

The other 99.99 percent of a person’s DNA is halved and recombined at every generation, making it difficult to trace its genealogical origins. Even this DNA does not account for all ancestors. Geneticists estimate that the average person has DNA from only 12 percent of their 1,024 ancestors from just a couple hundred years ago, a percentage that gets lower with each generation further back in time.15 Thus, again, genetic evidence becomes less representative of a person’s complete ancestry as one goes further back into the past.

Chart showing how catastrophic events can reduce a population's gene pool, leaving many genetic predecessors completely unaccounted for. Image by Book of Mormon Central.

Loss of genetic information is accentuated by what some geneticists call population bottlenecks—outbreaks of warfare, natural disasters, and disease. In addition to the bottlenecks documented in the Book of Mormon (Alma 43–62; 3 Nephi 8–10; Mormon 2–6), the pre-Columbian American population underwent one of the largest bottlenecks in human history after European contact, when perhaps up to 90 percent of the population died off.16

Finally, in the unlikely event that some DNA from the founding members of Book of Mormon peoples did survive in the present day, detection is complicated by post-Columbian admixture of Native Americans and Old World peoples. According to population geneticist Ugo A. Perego, current methods of dating genetic signatures are not sensitive enough to distinguish between post-Columbian admixture and any potentially pre-Columbian admixture within the last 3,000 years.17

The Why

These kinds of limitations led DNA scientist Michael F. Whiting to conclude, “It would be the pinnacle of foolishness to base one’s testimony” of the Book of Mormon “on the results of a DNA analysis.”18 With all the complexities of DNA science in mind, even defenders of the Book of Mormon must be cautious not to claim evidence where none exists.19 As concluded in the essay published by the Church, “DNA studies cannot be used decisively to either affirm or reject the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon.”20

Satellite image of the Americas. Image via Wikimedia Commons

Faithful Latter-day Saints should not be afraid to honestly admit that DNA analysis is inconclusive. The Book of Mormon holds up well under scrutiny and does not need to be propped up by improper use of science. While genetic studies do not offer the evidence some have hoped for, many other disciplines such as archaeology, anthropology, linguistics, geography, geology, literary studies, and ancient legal studies continue to yield fruitful evidence which both supports and sheds light on Book of Mormon narratives.21

Some Latter-day Saints may be interested to know that despite the absence of his genetic signature, it remains likely that Lehi and his sons, living in the Americas 2600 years ago, are common ancestors of all Native Americans living today. According to basic statistical calculation and world population estimates, after going back 2000–3000 years, nearly everyone living then is a common ancestor for nearly everyone living now.22

Latter-day Saints, therefore, need not abandon the long-standing belief—originating with Joseph Smith and carried on by every prophet since—that Lamanites or the children of Lehi can be found all throughout the Americas, although this should be viewed more as a cultural and genealogical construct and not as genetic legacy. Thus, the blessings of Lehi’s seed can and should be extended to native peoples from both North and South America. As stated in the Introduction to the Book of Mormon, Lehi’s family is “among the ancestors of the American Indians.”

Further Reading

“Book of Mormon and DNA Studies,” Gospel Topics, on lds.org.

Jayne E. Ekins and Ugo A. Perego, “Is Decrypting the Genetic Legacy of America’s Indigenous Populations Key to the Historicity of the Book of Mormon?” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 12 (2014): 237–279.

Daniel C. Peterson, ed., The Book of Mormon and DNA Research (Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2008).

1. See Thomas W. Murphy, “Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics,” in American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon, ed. Dan Vogel and Brent Lee Metcalf (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 2002), 47–77; Simon G. Southerton, Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 2004).

2. See Rod L. Meldrum, Rediscovering the Book of Mormon Remnant through DNA (Honeoye Falls, NY: Digital Legend Press, 2009).

3. “Book of Mormon and DNA Studies,” Gospel Topics, on lds.org.

4. See, for example, Ugo A. Perego et al., “The Initial Peopling of the Americas: A Growing Number of Founding Mitochondrial Genomes from Beringia,” Genome Research 20, no. 9 (2010); Ugo A. Perego et al., “Distinctive Paleo-Indian Migration Routes from Beringia Marked by Two Rare mtDNA Haplogroups,” Current Biology 19, no. 1 (2009): 1–8.

5. See Jennifer Anne Raff and Deborah A. Bolnick, “Does Mitochondrial Haplogroup X Indicate Ancient Trans-Atlantic Migration to the Americas? A Critical Re-Evaluation,” PaleoAmerica 1, no. 4 (2015): 297–304.

6. For a discussion of the limitations of DNA science, see John L. Sorenson, “New Light: The Problematic Role of DNA Testing in Unraveling Human History,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 9, no. 2 (2000): 66–74; reprinted in The Book of Mormon and DNA Research, ed. Daniel C. Peterson (Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2008), 1–21.

7. For a reader-friendly, book-length discussion of this subject, see D. Jeffrey Meldrum and Trent D. Stephens, Who Are the Children of Lehi? DNA and the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2003).

8. See Book of Mormon Central, “Did Interactions With ‘Others’ Influence Nephi’s Selection of Isaiah? (2 Nephi 24:1; Isaiah 14:1),” KnoWhy 45 (March 2, 2016). See also John L. Sorenson, “When Lehi’s Party Arrived in the Land, Did They Find Others There?” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 1, no. 1 (1992): 1–34; Matthew Roper, “Nephi’s Neighbors: Book of Mormon Peoples and Pre-Columbian Populations,” FARMS Review 15, no. 2 (2003): 89–128; reprinted in The Book of Mormon and DNA Research, 185–218; John Gee and Matthew Roper, “‘I Did Liken All Scriptures Unto Us’: Early Nephite Understandings of Isaiah and Implications for ‘Others’ in the Land,” in The Fulness of the Gospel: Foundational Teachings from the Book of Mormon, ed. Camille Fronk, Brain M. Hauglid, Patty A. Smith, Thomas A. Wayment (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and BYU Religious Studies Center, 2003), 51–65.

9. John M. Butler, “A Few Thoughts from a Believing DNA Scientist,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12, no. 1 (2003): 36–37; reprinted in The Book of Mormon and DNA Research, 23–24.

10. See Ugo A. Perego, “Finding Lehi in America Through DNA,” in A Reason for Faith: Navigating LDS Doctrine & Church History, ed. Laura Harris Hales (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2016), 179–192. “Unfortunately, no matter how large or small they eventually became as a people in the American continent, Lehi’s family still was a very small initial group with extremely limited genetic variation that would not constitute a large enough sample of their native population to ensure that their genetics would be properly represented in the New World” (p. 186).

11. John L. Sorenson, Mormon’s Codex: An Ancient American Book (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book and the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2013), 249.

12. See D. Jeffrey Meldrum and Trent D. Stephens, “Who Are the Children of Lehi?” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12, no. 1 (2003): 44–46; reprinted in The Book of Mormon and DNA Research, 168–172.

13. Ryan Parr, “Missing the Boat to Ancient America… Just Plain Missing the Boat,” FARMS Review 17, no. 1 (2005): 87, fig. 3.

14. John M. Butler, “Addressing Questions Surrounding the Book of Mormon and DNA Research,” FARMS Review 18, no. 1 (2006): 105–106; reprinted in The Book of Mormon and DNA Research, 75.

15. Perego, “Finding Lehi in America Through DNA,” 188.

16. David A. McClellan, “Detecting Lehi’s Genetic Signature: Possible, Probable, or Not?” FARMS Review 15, no. 2 (2003): 35–90; reprinted in The Book of Mormon and DNA Research, 99–155.

17. Ugo A. Perego, “The Book of Mormon and the Origin of Native Americans from a Maternally Inherited DNA Standpoint,” FARMS Review 22, no. 1 (2010): 216; reprinted in No Weapon Shall Prosper: New Light on Sensitive Issues, ed. Robert L. Millet (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2011), 193. See also Jayne E. Ekins and Ugo A. Perego, “Is Decrypting the Genetic Legacy of America’s Indigenous Populations Key to the Historicity of the Book of Mormon?” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 12 (2014): 257; reprinted in Ancient Temple Worship: Proceedings of the Expound Symposium, 14 May 2011, ed. Matthew B. Brown, Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, Stephen D. Ricks, and John S. Thompson (Salt Lake City and Orem, UT: Eborn Books and Interpreter Foundation, 2014), 272.

18. Michael F. Whiting, “DNA and the Book of Mormon: A Phylogenetic Perspective,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12, no. 1 (2003): 35; reprinted in The Book of Mormon and DNA Research, 96.

19. Gregory L. Smith, “Often in Error, Seldom in Doubt: Rod Meldrum and Book of Mormon DNA,” FARMS Review 22, no. 1 (2010): 17–161.

20. “Book of Mormon and DNA Studies,” Gospel Topics, on lds.org.

21. For a sampling of some of these evidences, see Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson, and John W. Welch, eds., Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2002). Readers are also invited to review the body of previous KnoWhys for hundreds of examples.

22. Matthew Roper, “Swimming in the Gene Pool: Israelite Kinship Relations, Genes, and Genealogy,” FARMS Review 15, no. 2 (2003): 159–163; Brian D. Stubbs, “Elusive Israel and the Numerical Dynamics of Population Mixing,” FARMS Review 15, no. 2 (2003): 165–182; both reprinted in The Book of Mormon and DNA Research, 253–256, 263–281, respectively; Smith, “Often in Error, Seldom in Doubt,” 86–88; Ekins and Perego, “Decrypting the Genetic Legacy,” 273.

I am by no means an expert in genetics.  At all.  I am quite the neophyte as to this topic.  However, I have read several, but not all, of the above footnoted references.  I have also spent years now listening to Southerton and his supporters re-hash the same talking points.  I have yet to see substantive interaction by Southerton with the scholarship and reasoning set forth in, for example, the above materials.

So I guess my question is this: Does Southerton's new book plow any new ground?  If so, what is it?

Back to Southerton:

Quote

My 2004 book, Losing a Lost Tribe: DNA, Native Americans and the Mormon Church (Signature Books), challenged the racist LDS belief that First Nations people are descended from Book of Mormon Lamanites and carry a dark skin because of a divine curse.  

Meh.  He's recycling stuff from sixteen years ago?

Quote

In response, Mormon scholars have attacked my scientific credibility and motives,

I don't know what this means.  It kinda sounds like he's taking a how-dare-you! approach to a disputed issue.  That's just not the way it works.  He's putting his claims and arguments out into the public sphere.  Examining and critiquing them is a totally legitimate exercise.

So if and when Dr. Southerton uses his "scientific credbility" to bolster is decidedly non-scientific say-so about the Book of Mormon, I think pointing that out is fair.

As for questioning his "motives," I guess I'd have to see what he is referring to there.

Quote

overstated the limitations and complexity of DNA studies, made false claims of positive DNA evidence

Well, has he done these things?  If he has not, then let's hear what he has to say.  If he has, then the criticism is appropriate.

Quote

and reinterpreted the Book of Mormon narrative in an attempt to accommodate vanishing DNA.

I think the critique of his position, which largely ignores the text itself, in favor of traditions and vague "narratives" which arose well before the advent of population genetics, is legitimate.

We need to give primacy to the text itself.  Southerton seems to mostly ignore that, in preference of mostly 19th-century inferences and conjecture about the text.  That just won't do.

Also, gotta love the loaded terminology of "vanishing DNA."  I guess that excuses him from addressing founder effect, genetic drift, genetic bottleneck, or any of the other totally legitimate elements of genetic science and analysis that impact on this topic.

Quote

The Sacred Curse, provides “the most accessible and succinct scientific refutation of Mormonism’s Lamanite mythology” (Thomas Murphy).

Again, Southerton seems to be talking about generalized teachings about the text of the Book of Mormon, rather than the text itself.

Quote

During the last 10 years scientists have been combing our entire genome for its ancestral secrets. In addition to discovering Neanderthal genes lurking in our DNA, these studies have shed much greater light on the origins, timing and route of human migrations into the Americas and the Pacific. No trace of pre-Columbian Israelite DNA has been found in the genomes of any of the thousands of indigenous people tested.

This sounds like a re-tread of what he has said in the past, without any meaningful effort to interact with or address the scholarship that has been published to the world for quite some time.

What does Southerton have to say that is responsive to the Church's essay on this topic?  Anything?  That essay concludes: "DNA studies cannot be used decisively to either affirm or reject the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon."  Is this factually, scientifically correct, or not?

What does Southerton have to say about the points raised in the BOMC article above?  Anything?

Do DNA data have limitations that could impair our ability to glean from it the information central to Southerton's position (namely, that DNA data conclusively negates the possibility of Lehi's migration to the New World)?  

Can we definitively state that we know what Lehi's DNA would look like?  Jared's?  Mulek's?  It seems not.  Wouldn't the starting point of Southerton's position necessarily require this?

How would the "founder effect" affect analysis of New World DNA relative to The Book of Mormon?  Does Southerton's new book address this?

How do we account for "genetic drift," the diminution in particular patrilineal/matrilineal genetic markers over the course of 2,600 years?  Does Southerton address this in any way?

Does Southerton account for the genetic "bottleneck" arising from the die-off of 90% of the native population subsequent to the arrival of European explorers?

Quote

DNA genealogy research continues to reveal the true history of indigenous peoples and, by implication, the 19th century origins of Mormonism’s keystone scripture.

Does it, though?  Does it "reveal the true history of ... the 19th century origins of Mormonism’s keystone scripture"?

Is that a scientific conclusion, Mr. Southerton?  It seems not.

One of the big gripes I have about people like Jeremy Runnells, Bill Reel, and John Dehlin is what seems to be their wearing ignorance as a badge of pride.  None of them responds to or meaningfully interacts with the substantive scholarship available to us (Runnells at least tries, but he does a very poor job of it).  Southerton's new book sounds like he is following their pattern of behavior.  If that is so, then I'm not impressed.

So, can anyone who has read the book provide a synopsis of it?

I normally try to trim down previous posts when I'm quoting them, but I think the entirety of the above is apt.

Also, I will emphasize the part that is particularly germane to this thread: "One of the big gripes I have about people like Jeremy Runnells, Bill Reel, and John Dehlin is what seems to be their wearing ignorance as a badge of pride.  None of them responds to or meaningfully interacts with the substantive scholarship available to us (Runnells at least tries, but he does a very poor job of it).  Southerton's new book sounds like he is following their pattern of behavior.  If that is so, then I'm not impressed."

I think this is what you are doing (that is, not doing).  You are not responding to or meaningfully interacting with the substantive scholarship that is readily available to us.  You completely ignored it in the OP, and in your response to my post - which includes extensive citations to relevant scholarship - you give no indication that you have read any of it, no indication that you are giving it a fair hearing, or even any hearing at all.

That's the bummer, in my opinion.  I feel that folks like you are fixated on finding fault, finding reasons to doubt and disbelieve.  As I have said before: 

Quote

I feel like our critics are not really listening to us.  They are not understanding us, or accurately describing or characterizing our position.  It seems like they don't want to listen or understand or charactize us.  They want to make us look bad, so any and every event or story about us must be construed so as to put the Church in a negative light.  

Abraham Maslow famously said: "I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail."

If one's perspective on the Church is principally defined by implacable hostility (the "hammer"), then every story about the Church can be construed to make us look bad ("as if it were a nail").

Again, I hope you have a change of heart.  I hope you give the Restored Gospel a fair hearing.  

57 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

That claim has basically been reduced to now only being able to say that well there was contact in outside of the BoM timeline. Nothing supports a mass migration sweeping west from America.

Which may speak more to your assumptions about the text of the Book of Mormon, rather than the text itself.  Nowhere in the Book of Mormon is there a description of "a mass migration sweeping west from America."  Further, what is this "BoM timeline" you are referencing?  The Book of Mormon speaks of the Nephite civilization being wiped out around 385 A.D.  The Lamanites continued on their way.  So what is it that requires exclusivly BOM-era migrations in order for the Church's narrative to work?  Couldn't the Lamanites have continued to survive past 385 A.D.?  In fact, isn't that what the text says happened?  If so, then why is it impossible for some of their descendants to have later migrated to the Polynesian islands?  

That's not to say that migrations during "the BOM timeline" are not feasible (personally, I'm quite open to the idea of Hagoth-like explorers migrating to the islands, or islanders visiting the Americas and returning to the islands with some of those natives), only that the text doesn't require them.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, rchorse said:

There are all sorts of traditions in the church that may or may not be correct. I'm not sure why it matters if this one is accurate or not. The Book of Mormon itself does not identify Polynesians as Book of Mormon people. That some or even many prominent leaders have held that opinion doesn't obligate me to agree. I'm not sure it's any more doctrinal than a lot of the tripe that came from Saturday's Warrior, but a lot of people loved that, too.

As for me, I don't think there's enough evidence on either side of the issue to even establish anything more than a very tentative leaning one way or the other. The same can be said of most of the of "gotchas" that people trot out against the church and its scriptures.

I can think of a few of my Polynesian friends who might think this matters. Large island communities migrated to the US (Utah/Missouri) precisely because they believe they have Lamanite heritage. Why do they believe that? Because that's what they were taught in church.

I find it fascinating how so many people are willing to just ignore inconvenient truths or pretend they are insignificant or don't matter at all.

Here's the thing, IF the church makes a truth claim like Polynesians being descended from Lamanites then it seems reasonable that the church back up that claim. Some things can be taken as a matter of faith, but asking people to take things on faith, when there is good evidence against that claim, just seems like a recipe for disappointment .

[rchorse]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I can think of a few of my Polynesian friends who might think this matters. Large island communities migrated to the US (Utah/Missouri) precisely because they believe they have Lamanite heritage. Why do they believe that? Because that's what they were taught in church.

I find it fascinating how so many people are willing to just ignore inconvenient truths or pretend they are insignificant or don't matter at all.

Here's the thing, IF the church makes a truth claim like Polynesians being descended from Lamanites then it seems reasonable that the church back up that claim. Some things can be taken as a matter of faith, but asking people to take things on faith, when there is good evidence against that claim, just seems like a recipe for disappointment .

Not sure I buy the bolded part. It couldn't have anything to do with wanting to be around a larger community of saints, more economic opportunity, or better educational opportunities? I won't pretend to understand why many or most Polynesians have migrated to the US, but I'm skeptical that any have come solely based on this teaching.

That's also a big IF. Like I said, I know it's been taught sporadically, but I wouldn't call it a truth claim of the church.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, rchorse said:

Not sure I buy the bolded part. It couldn't have anything to do with wanting to be around a larger community of saints, more economic opportunity, or better educational opportunities? I won't pretend to understand why many or most Polynesians have migrated to the US, but I'm skeptical that any have come solely based on this teaching.

That's also a big IF. Like I said, I know it's been taught sporadically, but I wouldn't call it a truth claim of the church.

I think the allure of the Lamanite heritage teaching helps many in the Polynesian community feel very close and connected to the church, which I think is very natural. I suspect there were other reasons, but when large communities migrate together I think the religious teachings are important in their decisions. In other words, I didn't say they migrated "solely" based on this one teaching.

Really?

Do you know any Polynesians?  If there are any on this board, please correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a pretty fundamental teaching for them.

[let’s roll]

5 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

What if any evidence is there, other than that which I've shared, that would support our LDS tradition? If it exists, I would like to see it.  Otherwise is it time for the church to just admit they were wrong and give these people back their true identity and culture?

It seems very condescending to our Pacific Islander brothers and sisters to say they have any identity or culture other than the one they have freely chosen for themselves.  

[Fair Dinkum]

1 hour ago, rchorse said:

There are all sorts of traditions in the church that may or may not be correct. I'm not sure why it matters if this one is accurate or not. The Book of Mormon itself does not identify Polynesians as Book of Mormon people. That some or even many prominent leaders have held that opinion doesn't obligate me to agree. I'm not sure it's any more doctrinal than a lot of the tripe that came from Saturday's Warrior, but a lot of people loved that, too.

As for me, I don't think there's enough evidence on either side of the issue to even establish anything more than a very tentative leaning one way or the other. The same can be said of most of the of "gotchas" that people trot out against the church and its scriptures.

Can you even begin to imagine how your life might be different had your entire life been replaced with a false cultural narrative? Your very identity as a human being would change.  You would see the entire world differently.  This is exactly what the church has done by supplanting the rich culture of the Polynesian community with one that isn't based on reality.

[Fair Dinkum]

8 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

It seems very condescending to our Pacific Islander brothers and sisters to say they have any identity or culture other than the one they have freely chosen for themselves.  

"Freely" or imposed and taught?

[Fair Dinkum]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Raingirls "gripe fatigue" is understandable.  But you raise a fair point.  So let's "address the issue."

1. Wikipedia has a fairly extensive entry about Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories.  

2. In 1993 Stephen Jett published this article in BYU Studies: Before Columbus: The Question of Early Transoceanic Interinfluences.  In this article Jett notes that this area of scholarly inquiry "is an extremely controversial area of research," and that "{t}here is a great deal of resistance even to talking about the idea of significant long-distance contacts prior to the time of Columbus."   Was he correct?  Has the scholarly landscape changed since then?  Might such controversy dissuade research, scholarly publications, etc. about this topic?

3. Jett's article also cited a 1990 two-volume publication John L. Sorenson and Martin H. Raish: Pre-Columbian Contact with the Americas across the Oceans: An Annotated Bibliography.  (The link is to a review by William Hamblin.)

4. In 1986 John L. Sorenson and Carl L. Johannessen published Scientific Evidence for Pre-Columbian Transoceanic Voyages To and From the Americas.  

5. FD rather curiously notes: "Other than some South American DNA that was introduced after the Book of Mormon timeline, in approximately 1200 AD and the sweet potato and gord, see here there is little to no reason we should refer to Pacific Islanders as Lamanites."  Are we sure all the data are in, though?  For example, consider this excerpt from a July 2020 National Geographic article:

Huh.  So further research shifted the date of contact "two centuries earlier than indicated by the 2014 DNA study."  Again, is it possible that not all the data are in?  Or that we do not have a full and complete understanding of transoceanic migrations between Polynesia and the Americas?  

And again, this article notes that "{p}re-Columbian mingling of Polynesians and Native Americans has long been a subject of debate."  

6. In 2005 John L. Sorenson published Ancient Voyages Across the Ocean to America: From “Impossible” to “Certain.”  From the abstract:

7. Evidencecentral.org has a good article on this topic: Book of Mormon Evidence: Ancient Transoceanic Migrations.  An excerpt:

8. BookofMormonCentral.org has a good article from 2016: Did Ancient People Sail the Seas?  Some excerpts:

A few thoughts:

A) Finding the foregoing articles took literally less than five minutes.  These materials are readily and freely findable and available, and have been for many years.

B) The foregoing materials are illustrative (they are just the first few at the top of the google search I did) they in turn cite to extensive evidence and further citations to other scholarly articles and materials.

C) Notwithstanding the ease of access to these materials, Fair Dinkum summarily declares that "Polynesia Populated from S.E. Asia NOT the America's in Direct Conflict with LDS Tradition" and (obviously rhetorically) asks "is it time for the church to just admit they were wrong and give these people back their true identity and culture?"

D) Notwithstanding the ease of access to these materials, Fair Dinkum asks: "What if any evidence is there, other than that which I've shared, that would support our LDS tradition? If it exists, I would like to see it."  

E) I admit I have a difficult time understanding the apparent malaise, even nihilistic skepticism, that seems to foment the litany of threads that by content and design are looking for reasons to not believe, to not look for plausible grounds for faith in the Restoration.  Even to the extent of deliberately obfuscating about, and/or refusing to expend even a little effort to locate, materials like those listed above.  Look at the opening post.  FD can't even be bothered to spend five minutes on Google, and instead comes here and asks us to present "evidence ... that would support our LDS tradition."  If he can't be bothered to spend five minutes on Google to find these materials, what are the chances that he would be willing to spend the considerably more extensive amounts of time and effort to actually read these materials?  To give them a fair hearing?  To read the other materials cited in them?  To perhaps contact John Sorenson or other scholars who have particularized expertise in this area of research (I contacted Dr. Kerry Muhlestein last year and asked him a few narrow questions, and he was quite happy and willing to respond)?  To pair these efforts with personal study, pondering, prayer, etc. to seek personal revelation and guidance as to these and associated questions about the truth claims of the Church?

F) This year I will be celebrating my 25th anniversary to my wonderful wife.  She is a very good person.  However, I have known many other couples who have likewise had seemingly strong marriages that break down.  If I was bound and determined to destroy my marriage, I would do what Fair Dinkum is doing here.  I would I would utterly refuse to consider any of her many fine attributes, and would instead emphasize and magnify her every actual or apparent weakness/flaw.  I would not listen to her.  I would refuse to consider any evidence or reasoning that could dissuade me from my intention of destroying our marriage.  I would not listen to any friends and family who might have something good to say about her.

Would pursuing this course of conduct be indicative of whether a divorce is appropriate?  No.  It is not remotely reflective of any reasoned analysis or fair-minded evaluation of things.  There may well be legitimate grounds for divorce, but the foregoing course of conduct will not help me identify them. 

FD, I feel for you, bro.  I hope you have a change of heart.  I hope you give the Restored Gospel a fair hearing.  Your endless series of threads like this one are not the way to go.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

 

Hmmm...  Ok so you have judged me and found me lacking.  To be fair, your posts are frankly Treatise's.  You're ability to cut and past a post together or if not cut and pasted together than your ability to quickly compose your posts is frankly impressive.  But to read through your posts in their entirety, including the links provided is beyond the time available for a timely reply.  

No I did not read through every link you provided.  But I am quite aware of the augments they make and I am also quite aware that they are isolated conclusions with little support outside of the small Mormon bubble, Dr. Coe not withstanding.

I find your bias in support of Sorenson and your dismissal of Southerton's finding in his new book, which yes I have actually read, unlike you, interesting.  Perhaps we are both guilty of of the same exact infraction...confirmation bias.

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Hmmm...  Ok so you have judged me and found me lacking. 

No.  I have disagreed with and found lacking your approach to the issue of transoceanic migrations in relation to the Book of Mormon. 

8 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

To be fair, your posts are frankly Treatise's. 

Your first post: "What if any evidence is there, other than that which I've shared, that would support our LDS tradition? If it exists, I would like to see it."

I took this as a sincere request for information.

8 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

You're ability to cut and past a post together or if not cut and pasted together than your ability to quickly compose your posts is frankly impressive. 

I am far more impressed with the substance of the scholarly materials I provided.  All I did was find them organize them, link to them and briefly describe and/or quote from them.

8 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

But to read through your posts in their entirety, including the links provided is beyond the time available for a timely reply.

You are rather proving my previous point (one of them) :

Quote

I admit I have a difficult time understanding the apparent malaise, even nihilistic skepticism, that seems to foment the litany of threads that by content and design are looking for reasons to not believe, to not look for plausible grounds for faith in the Restoration.  Even to the extent of deliberately obfuscating about, and/or refusing to expend even a little effort to locate, materials like those listed above.  Look at the opening post.  FD can't even be bothered to spend five minutes on Google, and instead comes here and asks us to present "evidence ... that would support our LDS tradition."  If he can't be bothered to spend five minutes on Google to find these materials, what are the chances that he would be willing to spend the considerably more extensive amounts of time and effort to actually read these materials?  To give them a fair hearing?  To read the other materials cited in them?  To perhaps contact John Sorenson or other scholars who have particularized expertise in this area of research (I contacted Dr. Kerry Muhlestein last year and asked him a few narrow questions, and he was quite happy and willing to respond)?  To pair these efforts with personal study, pondering, prayer, etc. to seek personal revelation and guidance as to these and associated questions about the truth claims of the Church?

You came to this board and asked for "evidence."  I provided links to extensive materials that may well include "evidence" responsive to your request.  You now seem to be saying that you do not have time to read these materials.

Well, that is certainly your prerogative.  I hope you have a change of heart. 

8 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

No I did not read through every link you provided.  But I am quite aware of the augments they make and I am also quite aware that they are isolated conclusions with little support outside of the small Mormon bubble, Dr. Coe not withstanding.

Here you are demonstrating another point I made:

Quote

I feel like our critics are not really listening to us.  They are not understanding us, or accurately describing or characterizing our position.  It seems like they don't want to listen or understand or charactize us.  They want to make us look bad, so any and every event or story about us must be construed so as to put the Church in a negative light.  

Abraham Maslow famously said: "I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail."

If one's perspective on the Church is principally defined by implacable hostility (the "hammer"), then every story about the Church can be construed to make us look bad ("as if it were a nail").

And here:

Quote

"One of the big gripes I have about people like Jeremy Runnells, Bill Reel, and John Dehlin is what seems to be their wearing ignorance as a badge of pride.  None of them responds to or meaningfully interacts with the substantive scholarship available to us (Runnells at least tries, but he does a very poor job of it)."

I just can't buy into your conclusory declarations.  You aren't interacting with any of the materials.  You are not demonstrating any familiarity with them.  You aren't responding to them in any meaningful or analytical way.  You are just summarily declaring that they aren't persuasive.

I see this sort of thing all the time in litigation.  Rather than address the substantive evidence or argument, an attorney or litigant will ignore it, or sidestep it, and then summarily and conclusorily declare it to be problematic in some way.  No demonstration or argument or analysis as to why this conclusion has been reached.

8 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I find your bias in support of Sorenson and your dismissal of Southerton's finding in his new book, which yes I have actually read, unlike you, interesting. 

We all have our biases.  However, I am, and have been for years, listening to and interacting with arguments and evidence from both sides.  

8 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Perhaps we are both guilty of of the same exact infraction...confirmation bias.

Well, we always need to be on guard for that.  One way I try to screen for it is to spend years and years interacting with people who disagree with me and my beliefs.  I listen to what they have to say.  I consider their evidence and their interpretations of it.  And I read.  A lot.

I can walk you through my reasoning, my analysis, my assessment of evidence.  I don't think you can say the same thing.  You just jump to the conclusion ("hey are isolated conclusions with little support outside of the small Mormon bubble").  No explanation.  No argument.  No assessment of the evidence.  Just a conclusory declaration.

Frankly, I think you have a much tougher row to hoe.  You want to prove a negative.  I don't.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[webbles]

6 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

The evidence seems overwhelming that Pacific Islanders are not descendants of Lehi, in direct conflict with LDS tradition.

What exactly is the "LDS tradition"?  If it is that Pacific Islanders are descendants of Lehi, then I don't see how the new study disproves that.  Your last article links to the news about possible mingling of Polynesians and South Americans about 800 years ago.  European visits weren't until the late 1700s (~250 years ago) so South Americans genetics had over 500 years to spread to more of the Polynesian population.  I believe I've read somewhere that if someone 600 years ago has one descendant, then almost everyone is also that person's descendant.  So, if Lehi has one descendant amongst the Polynesians, then it is highly likely that almost all of the Polynesians are his descendants.

But if the "LDS tradition" is that Polynesia was founded by Lehi's descendants, then yeah, that tradition should be set aside since it doesn't seem to be supported by anything (including the Book of Mormon).

[Fair Dinkum]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No.  I have disagreed with and found lacking your approach to the issue of transoceanic migrations in relation to the Book of Mormon. 

Your first post: "What if any evidence is there, other than that which I've shared, that would support our LDS tradition? If it exists, I would like to see it."

I took this as a sincere request for information.

It was asked with sincerity

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am far more impressed with the substance of the scholarly materials I provided.  All I did was find them organize them, link to them and briefly describe and/or quote from them.

You sir are a skilled organizer

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You are rather proving my previous point (one of them) :

I will gladly reward any poster on this board $100 who will honestly declare that they have read every word you ahve posted and read every word of every link you have ever provided in every post that you have made in MD&D.  So yes I am guilty of your charge.  But I am also fully transparent

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You came to this board and asked for "evidence."  I provided links to extensive materials that may well include "evidence" responsive to your request.  You now seem to be saying that you do not have time to read these materials.

Yo have misunderstood.  I have read through your post but I am guilty of not reading every reference nor read through every link you've provided in your kind but hearty reply.

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, that is certainly your prerogative.  I hope you have a change of heart. 

Here you are demonstrating another point I made:

And here:

I just can't buy into your conclusory declarations.  You aren't interacting with any of the materials.  You are not demonstrating any familiarity with them.  You aren't responding to them in any meaningful or analytical way.  You are just summarily declaring that they aren't persuasive.

Not exactly true.  As I stated earlier I am very aware of the arguments made by Sorenson, what I don't see is the scientific community clamoring over themselves to line up in support of his assertions.  In fact just the opposite.  Where his claims compelling, the scientific community would be massing in his support but instead he remains a lone wolf in the wilderness.

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I see this sort of thing all the time in litigation.  Rather than address the substantive evidence or argument, an attorney or litigant will ignore it, or sidestep it, and then summarily and conclusorily declare it to be problematic in some way.  No demonstration or argument or analysis as to why this conclusion has been reached.

That's fair, but again you minimize my assimilation of the material you provided links to and assume I've taken no effort read read any of it, which is not true.

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

We all have our biases.  However, I am, and have been for years, listening to and interacting with arguments and evidence from both sides.  

My compliments

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, we always need to be on guard for that.  One way I try to screen for it is to spend years and years interacting with people who disagree with me and my beliefs.  I listen to what they have to say.  I consider their evidence and their interpretations of it.  And I read.  A lot.

I try to do the same exact thing, which is one of my motivations for participating on this board.

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I can walk you through my reasoning, my analysis, my assessment of evidence.  I don't think you can say the same thing.  You just jump to the conclusion ("hey are isolated conclusions with little support outside of the small Mormon bubble").  No explanation.  No argument.  No assessment of the evidence.  Just a conclusory declaration.

You're suggesting that there to wide spread support of Sorenson's assertions? Pray do share.  I am obviously unaware of this wide spread support and acceptance , outside of Mormonism, of his theories.

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Frankly, I think you have a much tougher row to hoe.  You want to prove a negative.  I don't.  

I sincerely thank you for engaging with me. 

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Thanks,

-Smac

Mr Smac, I am not trying to go toe to toe or do a *** for tat with you.  I sincerely appreciate you sharing what you've shared and I will do my darnedest to read through what I can.  Thank you for your engagement.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Can you even begin to imagine how your life might be different had your entire life been replaced with a false cultural narrative? Your very identity as a human being would change.  You would see the entire world differently.  This is exactly what the church has done by supplanting the rich culture of the Polynesian community with one that isn't based on reality.

This is the sad part, and applies to the Native Americans as well.

Edited September 23, 2021 by Tacenda