For LDS only...some tricky questions

[Katzpur]

Mitochondrial DNA - apparently research has proven that native Americans (lamanites) are descendent from Asians and not the ten tribes of Israel? It shows no connection to middle Eastern. I'm conscious that the introduction to the Book of Mormon may have recently been changed to reflect this?

The question to be argued really isn't, "Are today's Native Americans of Middle-eastern ancestry?", but "Is it possible that a small family from the Middle-east could have settled on the already populated American continent 2600 years ago and left no genetic evidence of their existence?" Genetic drift alone would explain how Lehi's haplogroup would almost certainly have disappeared after just a few generations. If Lehi and his family had arrived on an empty continent, it would be a different matter entirely, but we know that wasn't the case.

We don't believe that all, or even most Native Americans are of Israelite descent. If that was our claim, then yes, it would clearly be wrong. Our claim is that it is entirely possible, for a small family from the Middle East to have settled somewhere on the American continent-- that continent being largely populated at the time of their arrival -- and to have left no genetic evidence 2600 years later.
There are a number of reasons why. One of them is “Genetic Drift.” Since you say you’re not an expert in the field, I’m going to assume you don’t know how Genetic Drift works. (I didn’t either, but I made it a point to learn.) The following is an experiment anyone can do to demonstrate the process by which Nephite’s generic markers could not only easily have disappeared over time, but how they almost certainly would have done:

Put 10 red marbles and 10 blue marbles in a jar. Pick one marble at random and check the color. Let's say it's red. Return the marble to the jar, but also take a marble of the same color from a bottle of spares, and put it in a second jar. The new marble (the one you just put in the second jar) will represent the red lineage. It's the lineage you want to track. Keep repeating this process, picking one random marble each time until the second jar has twenty marbles. (Always return the original marble you picked to the jar you took it from. That jar must always contain 20 marbles.) Of the 20 marbles in the second jar, you might have 8 red ones and 12 blue ones. After you've got 20 marbles in the second jar, start the whole process over again, this time picking marbles from the second jar and adding marbles of the corresponding color from your pile of spares to a third jar. By the time you've got 20 marbles in your third jar, you may have 5 red ones and 15 blue ones. By the time you're working on your fourth or fifth jar, you will likely have only blue marbles. If you have even one red one, though, repeat the process. You are guaranteed to have all blue by the time you get to the sixth or seventh jar. Blue will be fixed and red (the lineage you were trying to trace) will be gone forever.

This is not just a hypothetical explanation. Let's say you have a man from Italy who has five daughters. How many of those daughters would have his mtDNA? None, since mtDNA is passed through the woman’s lineage, but not a man’s. Let's say those five daughters give him 30 grandchildren. If that man had married an African woman, every single one of his grandchildren would be classified as African according to their mtDNA. There would not be a single solitary one who would have his mtDNA.

Lineages simply disappear over time. There can be a tremendous discrepancy between the DNA of people who lived 300 years ago and the people who live now. One very good example of this is found in the "deCODE Project" in Iceland. Recent research shows that the vast majority of today's Icelanders are descended from a tiny percentage of people who lived less than 300 years ago. Many people living there as recently as the mid-1700s have no genetic lineages represented in Iceland's population today.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

The question to be argued really isn't, "Are today's Native Americans of Middle-eastern ancestry?", but "Is it possible that a small family from the Middle-east could have settled on the already populated American continent 2600 years ago and left no genetic evidence of their existence?" Genetic drift alone would explain how Lehi's haplogroup would almost certainly have disappeared after just a few generations. If Lehi and his family had arrived on an empty continent, it would be a different matter entirely, but we know that wasn't the case.

We don't believe that all, or even most Native Americans are of Israelite descent. If that was our claim, then yes, it would clearly be wrong. Our claim is that it is entirely possible, for a small family from the Middle East to have settled somewhere on the American continent-- that continent being largely populated at the time of their arrival -- and to have left no genetic evidence 2600 years later.
There are a number of reasons why. One of them is “Genetic Drift.” Since you say you’re not an expert in the field, I’m going to assume you don’t know how Genetic Drift works. (I didn’t either, but I made it a point to learn.) The following is an experiment anyone can do to demonstrate the process by which Nephite’s generic markers could not only easily have disappeared over time, but how they almost certainly would have done:

Put 10 red marbles and 10 blue marbles in a jar. Pick one marble at random and check the color. Let's say it's red. Return the marble to the jar, but also take a marble of the same color from a bottle of spares, and put it in a second jar. The new marble (the one you just put in the second jar) will represent the red lineage. It's the lineage you want to track. Keep repeating this process, picking one random marble each time until the second jar has twenty marbles. (Always return the original marble you picked to the jar you took it from. That jar must always contain 20 marbles.) Of the 20 marbles in the second jar, you might have 8 red ones and 12 blue ones. After you've got 20 marbles in the second jar, start the whole process over again, this time picking marbles from the second jar and adding marbles of the corresponding color from your pile of spares to a third jar. By the time you've got 20 marbles in your third jar, you may have 5 red ones and 15 blue ones. By the time you're working on your fourth or fifth jar, you will likely have only blue marbles. If you have even one red one, though, repeat the process. You are guaranteed to have all blue by the time you get to the sixth or seventh jar. Blue will be fixed and red (the lineage you were trying to trace) will be gone forever.

This is not just a hypothetical explanation. Let's say you have a man from Italy who has five daughters. How many of those daughters would have his mtDNA? None, since mtDNA is passed through the woman’s lineage, but not a man’s. Let's say those five daughters give him 30 grandchildren. If that man had married an African woman, every single one of his grandchildren would be classified as African according to their mtDNA. There would not be a single solitary one who would have his mtDNA.

Lineages simply disappear over time. There can be a tremendous discrepancy between the DNA of people who lived 300 years ago and the people who live now. One very good example of this is found in the "deCODE Project" in Iceland. Recent research shows that the vast majority of today's Icelanders are descended from a tiny percentage of people who lived less than 300 years ago. Many people living there as recently as the mid-1700s have no genetic lineages represented in Iceland's population today.

Thanks Katz, what you say would make sense but why did the Book of Mormon used to say that the lamanites were the principal ancestors of the American indians? (Prior to the 2006 change)

 

[Jane.Doe]

Dang it, Katz answered while I was typing this up! Oh well..

Answering the question I am best qualified for (as a person who works with population genetics)--

Mitochondrial DNA - apparently research has proven that native Americans (lamanites) are descendent from Asians and not the ten tribes of Israel? It shows no connection to middle Eastern. I'm conscious that the introduction to the Book of Mormon may have recently been changed to reflect this?

A couple of background facts:
--Mitochondria DNA is passed via the female lines.
--It’s estimated that there were as many as 112 million Native Americans in 1492, plus all the ones which lived before that time.
-- According to the Book of Mormon, there were precisely 2 Israeli matriarchs which came over 600 BC.
-- For these genetics studies, scientists typically take DNA from <100 people, living in the 2010’s AD.

The probability of randomly detecting DNA from 2 individuals whom lived >2500 years ago is absolutely dismal, just based on sheer odds. The odds only further decrease when you add all the mass deaths of entire native populations due to small pox, European killings, slavery, random genetic drift, etc.

All in all, I am totally unsurprised that DNA studies did not “prove” the Book of Mormon (aka find the metaphorical needle in a million haystacks).

Also there’s also a really good official essay by the Church about this (https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng)

 

[Jane.Doe]

Thanks Katz, what you say would make sense but why did the Book of Mormon used to say that the lamanites were the principal ancestors of the American indians? (Prior to the 2006 change)

People wrongly assume things all the time.

For example, take this conversation--
Friend 1: "My grandparents came over from China."
Friend 2: "I know a guy who's grandparents came over from China, too! You guys must be cousins, how cool!"
(Realistically the odds of any 2 Chinese people being related is literally 1 in a billion).

 

[Truth_Faith13]

People wrongly assume things all the time.

For example, take this conversation--
Friend 1: "My grandparents came over from China."
Friend 2: "I know a guy who's grandparents came over from China, too! You guys must be cousins, how cool!"
(Realistically the odds of any 2 Chinese people being related is literally 1 in a billion).

I'm understanding the DNA facts but I think I must be misunderstanding the historical facts/LDS belief.

Is the DNA a separate issue to the claim in the Book of Mormon that lamanites were the principal ancestors of native Americans?

Is this right... Lehi was a lamanite? From middle East? Came to America?

 

[Jane.Doe]

Is the DNA a separate issue to the claim in the Book of Mormon that lamanites were the principal ancestors of native Americans?

If the Laminates were the principle ancestors of the Native Americans, Isreali DNA should be easy to find. However, they are not the principle ancestors, and finding that DNA (if it wasn't wiped out by random chance) is hunting for a needle in a thousand haystacks.

Is this right... Lehi was a lamanite? From middle East? Came to America?

BoM history lesson: Lehi was the patriarch whom came over from Jerusalem to the Americas. After his death, his sons divided into two groups, which became known as the Nephites and the Lamanites*. The Nephites were eventually all killed, some Lamanates survived. So Lehi himself was not a Lamanate, but the father of the people whom became Lamanates.

* Aside: the Book of Mormon is not designed as a history book, and frequently greatly simplifies historical events in order to focus on spiritual issues (it says this right in it’s pages). The people we call the “Lamanites” and "Nephites" are generalizations of a whole bunch of different groups of people.

 

[Katzpur]

Thanks Katz, what you say would make sense but why did the Book of Mormon used to say that the lamanites were the principal ancestors of the American indians? (Prior to the 2006 change)

You are probably making the assumption that, if Joseph Smith were a true prophet, he would not have made a statement that would later have to be modified. You must remember that, despite Joseph Smith's prophetic calling, he was also a fallible human being, just like the rest of us. He wrote the introduction to The Book of Mormon based on how he interpreted the facts, and based upon what was commonly known at that time. The introduction was not given by revelation. It was simply an "introduction" to the book, provided for the reader by the individual who translated the original record. One of the things I like most about Mormonism is that, unlike a great many of the more conservative Christian denominations, it is not "anti-science." As more scientific knowledge became available, the introduction to the book was updated to reflect that information. Joseph Smith never claimed to be perfect and he never claimed that everything he said was by inspiration. This is also true with respect to all of the Old Testament prophets Christians assume never spoke anything other than "God's word." As a matter of fact, Joseph Smith said, "A prophet is a prophet only when he is acting as such." Had he specifically asked the Lord, "Are the Lamanites the sole ancestors or even the principal ancestors of the American Indians," he may very well have received an answer of "No, they are not. They are among many of their ancestors." Evidently, however, it was so "obvious" to him that he simply made a statement that would later be proven to be inaccurate.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

If the Laminates were the principle ancestors of the Native Americans, Isreali DNA should be easy to find. However, they are not the principle ancestors, and finding that DNA (if it wasn't wiped out by random chance) is hunting for a needle in a thousand haystacks.



BoM history lesson: Lehi was the patriarch whom came over from Jerusalem to the Americas. After his death, his sons divided into two groups, which became known as the Nephites and the Lamanites*. The Nephites were eventually all killed, some Lamanates survived. So Lehi himself was not a Lamanate, but the father of the people whom became Lamanates.

* Aside: the Book of Mormon is not designed as a history book, and frequently greatly simplifies historical events in order to focus on spiritual issues (it says this right in it’s pages). The people we call the “Lamanites” and "Nephites" are generalizations of a whole bunch of different groups of people.

Thank-you for explaining the history!

OK so if the lamanites weren't the principal ancestors (especially given the DNA), why did the Book of Mormon originally say that?

This is what I meant before about me expecting too much possibly. Spelling errors, grammar etc I can see how they would occur but details such as lamanites being the principal ancestors surely should be correct? Especially when it's referred to as the most correct book?

 

[Truth_Faith13]

You are probably making the assumption that, if Joseph Smith were a true prophet, he would not have made a statement that would later have to be modified. You must remember that, despite Joseph Smith's prophetic calling, he was also a fallible human being, just like the rest of us. He wrote the introduction to The Book of Mormon based on how he interpreted the facts, and based upon what was commonly known at that time. The introduction was not given by revelation. It was simply an "introduction" to the book, provided for the reader by the individual who translated the original record. One of the things I like most about Mormonism is that, unlike a great many of the more conservative Christian denominations, it is not "anti-science." As more scientific knowledge became available, the introduction to the book was updated to reflect that information. Joseph Smith never claimed to be perfect and he never claimed that everything he said was by inspiration. This is also true with respect to all of the Old Testament prophets Christians assume never spoke anything other than "God's word." As a matter of fact, Joseph Smith said, "A prophet is a prophet only when he is acting as such." Had he specifically asked the Lord, "Are the Lamanites the sole ancestors or even the principal ancestors of the American Indians," he may very well have received an answer of "No, they are not. They are among many of their ancestors." Evidently, however, it was so "obvious" to him that he simply made a statement that would later be proven to be inaccurate.

Ah I see! Is it just the introduction that is not "revealed"?

By the way another random question? Why aren't the D&C and Pearl of Great Price mentioned in the articles of faith?

 

[Jane.Doe]

OK so if the lamanites weren't the principal ancestors (especially given the DNA), why did the Book of Mormon originally say that?

The Book of Mormon never said that. (see Katz's #47).

 

[Katzpur]

Thank-you for explaining the history!

OK so if the lamanites weren't the principal ancestors (especially given the DNA), why did the Book of Mormon originally say that?

This is what I meant before about me expecting too much possibly. Spelling errors, grammar etc I can see how they would occur but details such as lamanites being the principal ancestors surely should be correct? Especially when it's referred to as the most correct book?

I'm not sure if you saw my reply, but before your last post, but I kind of addressed that topic. The introduction to the Book of Mormon was not given by revelation and no one has ever said it was.

More to the point, though, in the overall scheme of things, I see the issue you're concerned about as being a relatively insignificant issue. Whether the Lamanites were the "principal ancestors" or just "among the ancestors" of the American Indians, how does that change the message of the Book of Mormon -- that Jesus is the Christ and that salvation is available to all people through Him and no other? If you're going to focus all that much on what the introduction to the book says instead of to the core doctrines it teaches, you're going to need to hold the Bible to the same standard. And I can assure you that you're going to run into similar issues in the Bible, starting with page 1.

 

[Jane.Doe]

Ah I see! Is it just the introduction that is not "revealed"?

The text itself is revealed (though not exempt from man-derived typo's and such things)
The intro, chapter headers, and footnotes are not direct revelation.

By the way another random question? Why aren't the D&C and Pearl of Great Price mentioned in the articles of faith?

Short answer: the Bible and BoM are more important.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

I'm not sure if you saw my reply, but before your last post, but I kind of addressed that topic. The introduction to the Book of Mormon was not given by revelation and no one has ever said it was.

More to the point, though, in the overall scheme of things, I see the issue you're concerned about as being a relatively insignificant issue. Whether the Lamanites were the "principal ancestors" or just "among the ancestors" of the American Indians, how does that change the message of the Book of Mormon -- that Jesus is the Christ and that salvation is available to all people through Him and no other? If you're going to focus all that much on what the introduction to the book says instead of to the core doctrines it teaches, you're going to need to hold the Bible to the same standard. And I can assure you that you're going to run into similar issues in the Bible, starting with page 1.

I do which is probably why I am not a member of a particular church! As I said before, I think I probably expect too much. Some of the issues I mention are not mine specifically, some "bother" me more than others but I'm mentioning them all as they are what critics mention and I have just decided (as Orontes pointed out) that I should ask the people of the faith about their own faith (of course critics will mention the whole "lying for the lord" thing but that's another issue!). Then afterwards go through all the facts and try and figure out which I believe. Mormonism has a lot of doctrines that make sense to me or that I hope to be true - the Godhead, the plan of salvation etc. I do get wound up in minor details sometimes but I have done that with all religions (within Christianity) that I have researched. Ive mentioned before there is a lot in Catholicism that I admire, but its minor details that keeps me in the "unsure" level.

I'm growing in certainty that I am down to Catholicism and Mormonism!

 

[Jane.Doe]

I do which is probably why I am not a member of a particular church! As I said before, I think I probably expect too much. Some of the issues I mention are not mine specifically, some "bother" me more than others but I'm mentioning them all as they are what critics mention and I have just decided (as Orontes pointed out) that I should ask the people of the faith about their own faith (of course critics will mention the whole "lying for the lord" thing but that's another issue!). Then afterwards go through all the facts and try and figure out which I believe. Mormonism has a lot of doctrines that make sense to me or that I hope to be true - the Godhead, the plan of salvation etc. I do get wound up in minor details sometimes but I have done that with all religions (within Christianity) that I have researched. Ive mentioned before there is a lot in Catholicism that I admire, but its minor details that keeps me in the "unsure" level.

I'm growing in certainty that I am down to Catholicism and Mormonism!

Well, feel free to keep the questions coming here- I am quite enjoying them!

 

[Katzpur]

By the way another random question? Why aren't the D&C and Pearl of Great Price mentioned in the articles of faith?

Short answer: the Bible and BoM are more important.

Twelve years after the Church was organized, a historian by the name of George Barstow was writing a history of New Hampshire and wanted to include a mention of the LDS Church in that state. Because he didn't know much at all about the beliefs of the Church, he went to a friend of his, John Wentworth, who was a newspaper publisher in Chicago. Mr. Wentworth, in turn, contacted Joseph Smith to see if he could give him a brief summary of our beliefs, which Joseph Smith did. Joseph's correspondence with Wentworth included his explanation of how he had received and translated the plates. It also included a list of our basic beliefs. That list, originally formulated as an explanation of LDS beliefs directed to a non-Mormon audience, eventually became known as the Articles of Faith. Basically, the Articles of Faith explain how we are different from traditional Christian Churches. The Pearl of Great Price had not even been published at that time (although some of the writings that were eventually included in the book were available to the members of the Church in various Church periodicals). While the Doctrine & Covenants is a good source of information regarding the revelations Joseph had received to that point, it was still a work-in-process (I suppose you might say that it still is). The 9th Article of Faith states, "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." I suppose Joseph could have added, "The Doctrine & Covenants contains these revelations to date."

 

[Katzpur]

I do which is probably why I am not a member of a particular church! As I said before, I think I probably expect too much. Some of the issues I mention are not mine specifically, some "bother" me more than others but I'm mentioning them all as they are what critics mention and I have just decided (as Orontes pointed out) that I should ask the people of the faith about their own faith (of course critics will mention the whole "lying for the lord" thing but that's another issue!). Then afterwards go through all the facts and try and figure out which I believe. Mormonism has a lot of doctrines that make sense to me or that I hope to be true - the Godhead, the plan of salvation etc. I do get wound up in minor details sometimes but I have done that with all religions (within Christianity) that I have researched. Ive mentioned before there is a lot in Catholicism that I admire, but its minor details that keeps me in the "unsure" level.

I'm growing in certainty that I am down to Catholicism and Mormonism!

You know, I think you're on the right track. I don't even know which direction you're leaning most, but you seem to be approaching the subject in a logical way. Years and years ago, an LDS Apostle by the name of Orson F. Whitney wrote an apologetic piece called, "The Strength of the Mormon Position." The following paragraph is taken from that document:

"Many years ago a learned man, a member of the Roman Catholic Church, came to Utah and spoke from the stand of the Salt Lake Tabernacle. I became well-acquainted with him, and we conversed freely and frankly. A great scholar, with perhaps a dozen languages at his tongue's end, he seemed to know all about theology, law, literature, science and philosophy. One day he said to me: 'You Mormons are all ignoramuses. You don't even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Catholic Church. The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that's all there is to it. The Protestants haven't a leg to stand on. For, if we are wrong, they are wrong with us, since they were a part of us and went out from us: while if we are right, they are apostates whom we cut off long ago. If we have the apostolic succession from St. Peter, as we claim, there is no need of Joseph Smith and Mormonism: but if we have not that succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and Mormonism's attitude is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the gospel in latter days.' "

I saw this years and years ago and it made all kinds of sense to me. Either an Apostasy took place or it didn't, and your decision as to which Church to join is going to have to come down to what conclusion you come to with respect to the reality of a "Great Apostasy." I've often said that I could become a Catholic easier than I could ever become a Protestant, for the simple reason that I believe Jesus Christ did, in fact, establish His Church and that it is essential that individuals holding proper authority stand at the helm of that Church. I could give you a million and a half reasons why I believe the Apostasy did happen and that an actual "Restoration" authorized by Jesus Christ was essential in order that it be re-established in its original form. I'm not going to do that because I don't want to have you see me as proselytizing. I especially don't want to be guilty of bad-mouthing Catholicism. The decision, of course, is ultimately going to be up to you, and I am confident that you're going to make the right choice. Personally, I have found that the doctrines of Mormonism do "make more sense" than the doctrines of any other denomination. And they are things which I, too, "hope to be true." You are an intelligent young woman. Keep studying, keep praying, and keep an open mind.

 

[Watchmen]

We don't believe that all, or even most Native Americans are of Israelite descent. If that was our claim, then yes, it would clearly be wrong.

What concerns me is that that used to be the Church's very claim. I'm happy the Church changed its teachings with the advancement of scientific evidence.

 

[Watchmen]

I do which is probably why I am not a member of a particular church! As I said before, I think I probably expect too much. Some of the issues I mention are not mine specifically, some "bother" me more than others but I'm mentioning them all as they are what critics mention and I have just decided (as Orontes pointed out) that I should ask the people of the faith about their own faith (of course critics will mention the whole "lying for the lord" thing but that's another issue!). Then afterwards go through all the facts and try and figure out which I believe. Mormonism has a lot of doctrines that make sense to me or that I hope to be true - the Godhead, the plan of salvation etc. I do get wound up in minor details sometimes but I have done that with all religions (within Christianity) that I have researched. Ive mentioned before there is a lot in Catholicism that I admire, but its minor details that keeps me in the "unsure" level.

I'm growing in certainty that I am down to Catholicism and Mormonism!

Don't ignore the common idiom "the devil is in the details."

 

[Orontes]

What concerns me is that that used to be the Church's very claim. I'm happy the Church changed its teachings with the advancement of scientific evidence.

What people may believe and what is doctrinal are not the same. Joseph Smith clearly believed Indians were descendants of Book of Mormon peoples, but there was never a revelation on the subject. People will often fill in for themselves positions or conclusions in order to make their would be world view more complete or comprehensible.

 

[Orontes]

y

Although in the Bible God destroys the veil, Mormonism replaces it in the Temples? (I think I know the answer to this but would still be interested to hear from you guys!)

I don't see this was replied to. Allow me.

Per the Bible and esoterism:

Scriptures have a variety of roles, including to educate and promote the faith. They have an evangelical element. They may also touch on the esoteric. However, esoteric elements proper (i.e. temple rites etc.) are not evangelical, but for the mature faithful. This is how it was in early Christianity, such was gradually lost. Let me give you a few examples of this kind of divide from the early Christian tradition to illustrate the idea:

-"In these circumstances, to speak of the Christian doctrine as a secret system, is altogether absurd. But that there should be certain doctrines, not made known to the multitude, which are (revealed) after the exoteric ones have been taught, is not a peculiarity of Christianity alone, but also of philosophic systems, in which certain truths are exoteric and others esoteric" -Origen (2nd Century)

- "The multitude professing Christianity were therefore divided by them into the profane, or those who were not yet admitted to the mysteries, and the initiated, or faithful and perfect...and as none were permitted to be present at these mysteries... save those whose admission into the fellowship of the Church was perfect and complete, so likewise was it expected that, as a matter of duty, the most sacred silence should be observed in regard to everything connected with the celebration of them, and nothing whatever relating thereto to be committed to the ears of the profane." Origen (2nd Cen)

-" In the same manner the Apostles and Fathers who laid down laws for the Church from the beginning thus guarded the awful dignity of the mysteries in secrecy and silence, for what is bruited abroad random among the common folk is no mystery at all. This is the reason for our tradition of unwritten precepts and practices, that the knowledge of our dogmas may not become neglected and contemned by the multitude through familiarity. "Dogma" [doctrine] and "Kerygma" [preaching] are two distinct things; the former is observed in silence; the latter is proclaimed to all the world. One form of this silence is the obscurity employed in Scripture, which makes the meaning of "dogmas" difficult to be understood for the very advantage of the reader..." -Basil of Caesarea (4th Cen.)

-"We ought not then to parade the holy mysteries before the uninitiated, lest the heathen in their ignorance deride them, and the Catechumens being over-curious be offended."- Athanasius (4th Cen)

-"Thence the prophecies and oracles are spoken in enigmas, and the mysteries are not exhibited incontinently to all and sundry, but only after certain purifications and previous instructions." Clement of Alexandria (2nd cen.)

-"If you are inducted into the Christian mysteries, then you must perform a prayer circle* round the alter...no only with other novitiatetes but also with the angels. For they are present and participate in the mystery" -Clement of Alexandria (2nd cen)​

One thing to note: mystery in Greek is mysterion. It was a technical term referring to rites and ceremonies.

*This was read as both prayer circle and ring dance