Book of Mormon vs. DNA

[DeepShadow]

No repetition. I don't recall anyone presenting any such evidence here. Please bring it forth.
Let's start with the DNA, since that was the subject of the OP. Will you please present the DNA evidence that supports the story told in the BoM, that America was settled by a small group of immigrants from the ANE who brought forth hundreds of thousands of descendants within a few centuries?

Problem is, the Book of Mormon says that this small group of immigrants intermarried with another, much larger group--the Mulekites--who probably had another kind of DNA. Were that the case, one would find a predominance of "Mulekite" DNA--whatever that is--and a much smaller amount of some other group. The presence of haplogroup X is consistent with this.

 

[Starfish]

No repetition. I don't recall anyone presenting any such evidence here. Please bring it forth.
Let's start with the DNA, since that was the subject of the OP. Will you please present the DNA evidence that supports the story told in the BoM, that America was settled by a small group of immigrants from the ANE who brought forth hundreds of thousands of descendants within a few centuries?

I don't know much about the DNA issue other than the testing apparently was suspect. I said there is physical evidence in findings in the Arabian peninsula and on the American continent. Plus the fact that Joseph Smith, or any of his associates, could not have possibly written the book. We all believe that which we choose to believe.
I choose to believe the evidence, and I'm assuming you do not.

 

[Autodidact]

Would you care to explain change?

And remember we have always believed in revelation.

Which one?

 

[Autodidact]

I don't know much about the DNA issue other than the testing apparently was suspect. I said there is physical evidence in findings in the Arabian peninsula and on the American continent. Plus the fact that Joseph Smith, or any of his associates, could not have possibly written the book. We all believe that which we choose to believe.

What testing, of what? Why was it suspect? What was suspect about it? Is there any DNA evidence whatsoever that supports the BoM story? Can you cite any studies? You asserted there was such evidence--can you produce it? I do not believe what I choose to believe; I choose to believe what the evidence indicates. If the evidence indicated that America was settled by Christians from the Near East who rode chariots, raised cattle, used spears and grew wheat, I would. It doesn't

I choose to believe the evidence, and I'm assuming you do not.

So you say, yet you have produced none, while I have submitted quite a lot, all of it consistent with what I am arguing. Would you like some more? Are you planning to present any, or just accept your word for it?

 

[DeepShadow]

Is there any DNA evidence whatsoever that supports the BoM story?

I just offered some--haplogroup X. Perhaps you missed it?

 

[DeepShadow]

In discussing the DNA issue, it's first important that we establish what the Book of Mormon actually says, versus assumptions about what it says. For over a century, Mormon scholars and leaders have cautioned against the assumption that the Book of Mormon accounted for all the ancestors of the Native Americans:

LDS scholar Janne Sjodahl wrote that "students should be cautioned against the error of supposing that all the American Indians are the descendants of Lehi, Mulek, and their companions" (Sjodahl, 1927, p. 435).

(Sjodahl specifically lists Asia as one of the places from where other groups may have come from)

Anthony W. Ivins of the First Presidency told Latter-day Saints: [FONT=Geneva,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]We must be careful in the conclusions that we reach. The Book of Mormon teaches the history of three distinct peoples, or two peoples and three different colonies of people, who came from the old world to this continent. It does not tell us that there was no one here before them. It does not tell us that people did not come after. And so if discoveries are made which suggest differences in race origins, it can very easily be accounted for, and reasonably, for we do believe that other people came to this continent. (Ivins, 1929, p. 15)[/SIZE][/FONT]

Unfortunately, many LDS were not listening. Overgeneralizatons are too great a temptation, and thus the Church has had to correct the text of the Introduction to clarify this fact.

 

[DeepShadow]

For source info about Haplogroup X, check out statements by Virginia Morell in Science magazine in 1988:

Anthropologists have long assumed that the first Americans, who crossed into North America by way of the Bering Strait, were originally of Asian stock. But recently they have been puzzled by surprising features on a handful of ancient American skeletons, including the controversial one known as Kennewick Man--features that resemble those of Europeans rather than Asians (Science, 10 April 1998, p. 190). Now a new genetic study may link Native Americans and people of Europe and the Middle East, offering tantalizing support to a controversial theory that a band of people who originally lived in Europe or Asia Minor were among the continent's first settlers.

 

[Autodidact]

Problem is, the Book of Mormon says that this small group of immigrants intermarried with another, much larger group--the Mulekites--who probably had another kind of DNA. Were that the case, one would find a predominance of "Mulekite" DNA--whatever that is--and a much smaller amount of some other group. The presence of haplogroup X is consistent with this.

I'm sorry, I have no idea what this means; could you explain? Like most of us, I have no particular background in genetics.

According to the Book of Mormon, the Mulekites, or the people of Zarahemla, were descended from Mulek, a son of Zedekiah, king of Judah.

So they're all from the ANE. Is there any evidence of DNA from ANE people in any American Indians?

 

[Autodidact]

In discussing the DNA issue, it's first important that we establish what the Book of Mormon actually says, versus assumptions about what it says. For over a century, Mormon scholars and leaders have cautioned against the assumption that the Book of Mormon accounted for all the ancestors of the Native Americans:

(Sjodahl specifically lists Asia as one of the places from where other groups may have come from)

Unfortunately, many LDS were not listening. Overgeneralizatons are too great a temptation, and thus the Church has had to correct the text of the Introduction to clarify this fact.

If there were supposed to have been anyone in America when the fictional BoM people arrived, the BoM fails to mention it. Which you would think is something you would notice. I'm just sayin'.

In any case, we have found no evidence of any ANE ancestry for any American Indians.

 

[Autodidact]

I haven't managed to slog through the entire BoM; it's so deadly dull. Maybe Deep Shadow could tell us gentiles what the BoM says about people in America other than the purported ANE immigrants. Does it say anything at all about them?

About how many people does the BoM indicate were descended from BoM people in America?

 

[Starfish]

Too many people spend more time reading what others say about the BoM, then they spend actually reading it themselves. I wouldn't be comfortable criticizing a book I haven't read.

 

[DeepShadow]

I'm sorry, I have no idea what this means; could you explain? Like most of us, I have no particular background in genetics.

It means that genetic markers have been found in a small but significant population of Native Americans that are consistent with ANE ancestry. See the quote from the Science article.

So they're all from the ANE. Is there any evidence of DNA from ANE people in any American Indians?

Actually, there are many reasons that the claim of descent from Zedekiah is suspect, but even if it's true, the mitochondrial DNA of Mulek's descendents would come from his wife, not Mulek himself. There is a raft of evidence to suggest that Mulek's "descendents" were actually Jaredite in origin--and Jaredites were almost certainly from Asia.

But to answer your question, yes, there is evidence of DNA from ANE people in some American Indians.

 

[DeepShadow]

If there were supposed to have been anyone in America when the fictional BoM people arrived, the BoM fails to mention it. Which you would think is something you would notice. I'm just sayin'.

It may seem odd that the Book of Mormon does not mention native peoples (other than Mulekites or Jaredites). Then again, it does not specifically mention that the land was empty, either. A comparison of the timelines would reveal that the Jaredite empire was fizzling out around the time when Lehi arrived, and yet there is no mention of them either way,

Consider first that the Book of Mormon is not the only history the Nephites kept. Rather, it is strictly a religious history, and an abridgement at that. With this emphasis, it stands to reason that they would neglect to mention many, many things that were not extremely out of the ordinary. So now the question becomes, what is out of the ordinary for BoM peoples--an empty land, or a populated one?

The answer is found in the Book of Ether, when the Jaredites find a land that is empty, they specifically state that it is empty. That is unusual. Ergo, the "default" for any lands that are not stated to be uninhabited is that they are indeed inhabited.

In any case, we have found no evidence of any ANE ancestry for any American Indians.

Except for the genetic information which I've already cited. Twice.

 

[DeepShadow]

I haven't managed to slog through the entire BoM; it's so deadly dull. Maybe Deep Shadow could tell us gentiles what the BoM says about people in America other than the purported ANE immigrants. Does it say anything at all about them?

The Jaredites are the one group that are clearly not ANE. There is a lot of evidence to suggest they were Asian in origin. Their empire was breaking up around the time that Lehi arrived in the Americas. Many LDS assume that the Jaredites were all destroyed in their climactic final battle, but this is another one of those generalizations that overlooks several statements to the contrary. Suffice it to say that the empire was destroyed, but that survivors scattered in all directions.

One group with ties to the Jaredites is the Mulekites. While they claim to be descended from a son of King Zedekiah in Jerusalem (a claim that may or may not be true), they have Jaredite names, customs, and even weights and measures.

About how many people does the BoM indicate were descended from BoM people in America?

Well, see, there's the problem: the BoM records that the Nephites were united with the Mulekites, and they were all called Nephites despite the fact that the Mulekites were the more numerous group (by how much, it does not say).

Even worse, the BoM states that at the time of the Nephite-Mulekite union, the Lamanites were at least twice as numerous as both the others combined. This is a curious statement, as the Lamanites seem to have had fewer women to start off with, and did not engage in polygamy to increase their reproductive rate, as the Nephites did. Thus, the best explanation for the Lamanite population boom is that they intermarried with preexisting natives. That the BoM records no such intermarriage explicitly should not be a surprise; it's a history of the Nephite half, not the Lamanite half.

Thus, it's likely that both sides intermarried with natives to increase their population. The populations of "Nephites" and "Lamanites" later are little more than ideological labels anyway; by the end of the book, it's more than likely that fewer than 10% of the people on either side are direct descendents of Lehi anyway.

Whew! I guess that covers the basics. Where can I fill in gaps for you, Auto?

 

[Melissa G]

" One group with ties to the Jaredites is the Mulekites. While they claim to be descended from a son of King Zedekiah in Jerusalem (a claim that may or may not be true), they have Jaredite names, customs, and even weights and measures. "

Whilst who claims ? Do you mean Smith's BOM. I am assuming that is what you mean, as these peoples are entirely fictional and have no record outside of the BOM. Certainly, none are are mentioned the OT.

melissa g

 

[Bishka]

" One group with ties to the Jaredites is the Mulekites. While they claim to be descended from a son of King Zedekiah in Jerusalem (a claim that may or may not be true), they have Jaredite names, customs, and even weights and measures. "

Whilst who claims ? Do you mean Smith's BOM. I am assuming that is what you mean, as these peoples are entirely fictional and have no record outside of the BOM. Certainly, none are are mentioned the OT.

melissa g

It's quite obvious my your unknowledgable statement that you have no background in this research and that you refuse to even consider (or read by the words of your comment) what Deepshadow has written.

 

[Francine]

Well, see, there's the problem: the BoM records that the Nephites were united with the Mulekites, and they were all called Nephites despite the fact that the Mulekites were the more numerous group (by how much, it does not say).

The BoM also says that all the Nephites were slain. If the Mulekites united themselves with the Nephites and were thereafter known as Nephites, and if all the Nephites were slain, then it follows that all the Mulekites were also slain.

 

[nutshell]

The BoM also says that all the Nephites were slain. If the Mulekites united themselves with the Nephites and were thereafter known as Nephites, and if all the Nephites were slain, then it follows that all the Mulekites were also slain.

Assuming that all Mulekites united with the Nephites (which I think is a generalization).

 

[DeepShadow]

The BoM also says that all the Nephites were slain. If the Mulekites united themselves with the Nephites and were thereafter known as Nephites, and if all the Nephites were slain, then it follows that all the Mulekites were also slain.

True, except that by 4th Nephi, the term "Nephite" and "Lamanite" have been abandoned. When they are picked up again, it's as ideological labels rather than lineages, so the surviving "Lamanites" include plenty from all the other prior groups.

Moreover, the earlier breakoffs from the Nephites included many Mulekites, who are thereby recorded as switching sides. Consider Coriantumr, who is listed in Helaman 1:15 as being a dissenter from the Nephites, and a descendent of Zarahemla, the Mulekite king. It's also telling that he shares the name of the last known Jaredite king.

 

[DeepShadow]

Assuming that all Mulekites united with the Nephites (which I think is a generalization).

Of course.

While we're talking about generalizations, let's not forget the bodycount that Moroni performs at the end. Are we to assume that he actually counted the heads of every single fallen Nephite soldier? Hardly. He lists them in groups of ten thousand, which was probably a standardized military unit, like the Roman centuries (groups of 100) and legions (groups of 1000). To say that a battalion had "fallen" was to say it was no longer a fighting force on the field of battle, not that ever single individual had perished. Consider that a Roman "century" was considered "decimated" if it lost a tenth of its men.

I'm thinking Moroni looked around the field of battle and said, "We're officially done." Which is to say, the Nephites (as a nation) were no more. Counting noses, not so much.