Mormons: DNA Shows that Native North Americans were Never Jewish. What is your Response to This?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I suppose that would be a good question for the folks who wrote the previous preface to the BoM. Obviously they collectively felt that saying the Israelites were the "principal ancestors of the American Indians" was justified. Otherwise, they would have written something else.

The introduction of the BOM stated in the second paragraph....

“The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon. The record gives an account of the two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C., and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.”

The same paragraph now reads....

After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they were among the ancestors of the American Indians.”

According to the internet.
I don`t have a physical copy of the newer version in my possession.

Okay... I get that the preface used to say this. But is the preface to the Book of Mormon considered scripture itself, or is it merely commentary?

I have never read beyond Nephi 2 in the book but it is riddled with heavy implication of Hebrew ancestry for the native Americans.

Such as?

 

[linwood]

Okay... I get that the preface used to say this. But is the preface to the Book of Mormon considered scripture itself, or is it merely commentary?

Agreed the argument that the introduction is merely commentary can be supported (That`s the route I`d take if I had to defend it ).

However when you consider the context of all the introductory passages of this book and the obvious purpose for them they take on an importance much greater than simply commentary.
The entire pre-face of the book(7 pages) is apologetics defending it`s validity quite strenuously.
It is the most defensive religious text I`ve ever read.

The fact that this change was made and the timing with which it was made gives foundation for such questions as why?

Such as?

I`ll see what I can dig up.
Don`t you have Google?

 

[Jose Fly]

Okay... I get that the preface used to say this. But is the preface to the Book of Mormon considered scripture itself, or is it merely commentary?

Whether it's commentary or scripture isn't important to the main point. If that sort of statement is going to be approved for a preface in the official Book of Mormon, it's a safe bet that the general opinion among Mormon leadership was that Israelites were the "principal ancestors of the American Indians" and that the concept was supported by a reading of the scripture.

Unless one wants to argue that the preface to the BoM was/is just flippant commentary without much thought behind it. And that brings up a host of other issues.

 

[Katzpur]

So why then was the introduction to the BoM changed from stating that the Lamanites are "the principal ancestors of the American Indians" to stating that they are "among the ancestors of the American Indians"?

The introduction never was considered to be inspired or revealed. At one time, the Church leadership made an incorrect assumption. It was When additional information came to light over the years, the introduction was changed.

 

[Katzpur]

In all honesty Kat this is the LDS claim NOW since they`ve discovered genetics.

It wasn`t always and it is very recent .

Would you like me to quote the introduction from my 20 year old copy of the BOM here?

Be my guest. That the introduction was changed is common knowledge.

The book claims directly that ..

The Lamanites are "are the principal ancestors of the American Indians."

When did this belief change and why?

I just addressed that in my prior post.

 

[Katzpur]

That is utterly in disagreement with the book of Mormon.

How so?

 

[Katzpur]

And as to the bottleneck of the human population Kat refers to, yes, I'm very well aware of it. Joseph Smith sure didn't seem to be though.

I think you're misunderstanding the term. If you think I'm wrong, please elaborate, and explain what you believe what a population bottleneck refers to with respect to our ability to trace the lineage of a group of people through DNA.

 

[Jose Fly]

The introduction never was considered to be inspired or revealed.

That's not the issue.

At one time, the Church leadership made an incorrect assumption.

What was that assumption, and on what was it based?

It was When additional information came to light over the years, the introduction was changed.

What "additional information"?

 

[Katzpur]

I sincerely don't mean this as a personal attack on Katz, honestly, I have no reason to make her feel bad, and I don't want her to feel bad.

Don't worry, I don't feel bad at all. Why should I? You haven't accomplished anything, least of all even attempted to substantiate your initial claim with evidence.

But, the fact is she is trying to resist the increasingly obvious reality that is being exposed as modern science melts away her god of the gaps and shows the truth beneath it.

Don't tell me what I'm trying to do. I'm not resisting anything science has proven. You're just saying that science has provided evidence that proves Native Americans are Jewish, and I'm not even disagreeing with that. If the American continent had been empty when the people whose history is recounted in the Book of Mormon, then your claim would be justified. Since that wasn't the case, it's not.

 

[Katzpur]

That's not the issue.

Of course it is. If we make a claim, and later come to recognize that the claim is flawed, we change it. You're trying to force a Catch-22 situation here. If we change our claim, we're accused of waffling. If we stick to it, we're operating with blinders on. At one point, the Church leadership believed the Nephites to be the principle ancestors of the American Indians. They later realized this was not the case (due to scientific evidence, which Mormons do attempt to discredit) and revised their thinking.

What was that assumption, and on what was it based?

I've already explained what the assumption. It was based on lack of knowldge.

What "additional information"?

Evidence of migrations across the Bering Strait, for starters.

 

[Jose Fly]

Of course it is. If we make a claim, and later come to recognize that the claim is flawed, we change it. You're trying to force a Catch-22 situation here. If we change our claim, we're accused of waffling. If we stick to it, we're operating with blinders on.

Right, that sort of thing isn't a problem....unless one is making claims about being the true word of god.

At one point, the Church leadership believed the Nephites to be the principle ancestors of the American Indians.

Why?

They later realized this was not the case (due to scientific evidence, which Mormons do attempt to discredit) and revised their thinking.

So the change was due to scientific data, not a re-evaluation of scripture?

 

[Katzpur]

Right, that sort of thing isn't a problem....unless one is making claims about being the true word of god.

Nobody ever claimed that the introduction was "the true word of God." That's the part that was changed. Somehow you just don't seem to be grasping that.

Why?

There was little reason not to. Most Christians 200 years ago believed the earth was created in six 24-hours days. When scientific findings indicated that it took much longer than that, many Christians accepted that, and began to understand that the scriptural account of the creation was probably never intended to be interpreted literally. Most Christians I know today (both LDS and otherwise), believe the Earth is billions of years old. It's much the same when it comes to the introduction to the Book of Mormon. When the book was first published, little was known about trans-continental migrations from to the American continent. As we came to understand the various ways the Americas came to be populated, the introduction to the Book of Mormon was revised accordingly. Nothing within the text of the book was changed because the book never made a statement one way or the other.

So the change was due to scientific data, not a re-evaluation of scripture?

The scripture didn't need to be re-evaluated. It never made any claims regarding what percentage of the Native Americans today may be descended from the Nephite people.

 

[Autodidact]

I'll tell you what's really amusing. It's that people insist on arguing against a claim the Latter-day Saints aren't even making. Phrase the argument correctly and of course your're going to win. Just so that we're on the same page, we do NOT claim that "Native Americans are of Israelite origin." Our claim is that it is entirely possible that a small family from Israel could have arrived in America, to a continent that was already populated, leaving no genetic evidence of their existance 2600 years later. So if you can stop being amused long enough to respond to my post, I would like to hear your explanation of the process by which these DNA studies have concluded that the claim we are actually making (and not the one you seem to believe we're making) is false.

But wait, doesn't the BoM claim that these founders reproduced until there were millions of them? And that they had great battles with thousands of casualties? And that they're, at a minimum, among the ancestors of the Native Americans, a claim entirely unsupported by any genetic evidence, bottleneck or no? And if your copy of the BoM dates before 2006, that the Israelites are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.

Also, curiously, nowhere in the BoM does it mention a single human being in the land that the fictitious Israelite settlers came to.

That's without going into all the non-existent plants, animals and crops, implements, weapons, materials...

 

[Autodidact]

Well, let's put it this way. For 180 years, people have been claiming that things mentioned in the Book of Mormon did not exist in the Americas prior to the Spanish Conquest. Over time, and particularly within the last 15 or 20 years, evidence that many of these things did exist has turned up. So far, though, no big sign that says, "Welcome to Zarahemla."

Oh really? And what might that be?

Most of the "evidence" for the Book of Mormon's Hebraic origins is linguistic in nature. I'm not going to get into a big debate over any of this, though. In the past, whenever I or any other Mormon has presented evidence (sometimes in considerable detail), people will turn around five posts later and say, "There is NO evidence for the Book of Mormon." It's a losing battle, and it's not because it's an open and shut case on either side. I've just been down that road so many times I'm sick of it. I wanted to respons to msizer's OP because (1) the initial premise is flawed, and (2) it's easy enough to throw out a general negative statement without explaining it in any more detail that he did.

So not a single artifact? Millions of people lived here, built cities, fought battles, rode chariots, smelted metal, grew crops, and managed to pass into oblivion without leaving a single artifact? Why, it's almost as if they never existed!

Yes, it is clearly an open and shut case. There is no credible, persuasive evidence to support the silly, ridiculous story in the BoM.

 

[Autodidact]

Obviously, I don't personally believe in the Book of Mormon, or the Bible, or the Qur'an, or any other scriptures -- including Buddhist and Taoist scriptures. I appreciate the Tao Te Ching, the Dhammapada, the Heart Sutra, and other writings, but I don't believe in them. I share your incredulity fully.

I'm just a little uncomfortable when Mormons, who are maybe one or two percent of the U.S. population, are singled out for characteristics that permeate Western religion -- and even, to a lesser extent, religion generally. It's too easy to say, "Ha ha! Those crazy Mormons."

I do think the Mormon Church should be thoroughly and unceasingly savaged for its militant homophobia, along with the Evangelicals and the Roman Catholics -- not because those are the most homophobic religions in the U.S. but because they're the ones most active and most effective in promoting it. If they want to fight, then fine. Let's fight.

But when it comes to their religious beliefs, I couldn't care less. I think a lot of what Mormons believe is nonsense, but have you taken a good look at the Catholics and the Evangelicals? Or Buddhism, for that matter. I've come across so much absolute crap from Buddhists that at times I regret ever telling anybody I was a Buddhist. But life goes on. Take what you need and leave the rest.

Yes, that's true. Most religions believe silly, false things. It's just that the things that Mormons believe are clearly, undeniably, grossly and obviously provable false, and recent enough that we can know that. The only way you can accept any of it is to throw science out the window.

I guess for me it's like: If we can't get people to reject something that silly, there's little hope for the rationality of humanity in general.

 

[Jose Fly]

Nobody ever claimed that the introduction was "the true word of God." That's the part that was changed. Somehow you just don't seem to be grasping that.

I understand that completely. What you seem to be glossing over (or not appreciating) is that the statement in question in the preface was based on something. Now, unless I've missed something important, it's a reasonable conclusion that the statement that Israelites are the "principal ancestors of the American Indians" was based on a plain reading of the text of the Book of Mormon. If not, what was it based on? And why would Mormon Church leaders allow something like that in, if it had no basis in scripture?

There was little reason not to. Most Christians 200 years ago believed the earth was created in six 24-hours days. When scientific findings indicated that it took much longer than that, many Christians accepted that, and began to understand that the scriptural account of the creation was probably never intended to be interpreted literally.

Right, which is similar to what I described with the Bible and the characteristics of the earth.

But that brings up a larger issue. Suddenly the "true word of god" isn't so plain and true after all, is it? Apparently for centuries, leaders and believers can all agree on one fact that stems from a direct reading of scripture, but have all that turned on its head via a finding of science. That begs the question: What was wrong with the leaders before? Did they not know how to read their own scriptures? They were completely oblivious to the now-fact that the scriptures in question actually meant something totally different?

If so, what does that say about the "true word of god"? Apparently this god isn't very good about conveying his true message. One also has to wonder: What's next? Just looking at Mormonism, for much of its history, "celestial marriage" was seen as fundamental tenet and extremely important to the faith (even to the point where it was practiced and advocated strongly by its founders). But when it's politically expedient, suddenly that changes (and to the exact opposite, where it's now forbidden).

To be fair, this is hardly unique to Mormonism. All religions change over time, and as we discussed, that by itself is no big deal. But when one claims from the beginning to be the "true word of god", but then starts changing things based on political convenience, social trends, or whatever, that kinda calls the whole "true word of god" thing into question.

It looks more like "We just made all this up and we can change any of it as we please".

When the book was first published, little was known about trans-continental migrations from to the American continent. As we came to understand the various ways the Americas came to be populated, the introduction to the Book of Mormon was revised accordingly. Nothing within the text of the book was changed because the book never made a statement one way or the other.

So what the heck were the people who wrote the original introduction going by? They just made stuff up? And no one from the Mormon congregation called them on it?

 

[Autodidact]

Okay... I get that the preface used to say this. But is the preface to the Book of Mormon considered scripture itself, or is it merely commentary?


Such as?

I think that gives them even bigger problems. The living prophets, receiving inspiration directly from God, reading a book "translated" by their founder, cannot figure out its most basic meaning? If that's their argument, they'd pretty much have to throw the whole thing out the window, because anything could turn out to mean anything. If you're going to be guided by science, why not just go directly to the science?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Agreed the argument that the introduction is merely commentary can be supported (That`s the route I`d take if I had to defend it ).

However when you consider the context of all the introductory passages of this book and the obvious purpose for them they take on an importance much greater than simply commentary.
The entire pre-face of the book(7 pages) is apologetics defending it`s validity quite strenuously.
It is the most defensive religious text I`ve ever read.

The fact that this change was made and the timing with which it was made gives foundation for such questions as why?

Well, the answer that immediately comes to mind is that it was found to be incorrect. The question is whether this presents any sort of doctrinal issue for the beliefs of the LDS Church, and it seems to me that it wouldn't have to.

I`ll see what I can dig up.
Don`t you have Google?

Sure, but you're the one making the argument that the stuff is in there.

Whether it's commentary or scripture isn't important to the main point.

Of course it is. If it was considered an authoritative statement in the first place, then it would probably matter a great deal that it was changed. If it wasn't authoritative, it's a minor issue.

If that sort of statement is going to be approved for a preface in the official Book of Mormon, it's a safe bet that the general opinion among Mormon leadership was that Israelites were the "principal ancestors of the American Indians" and that the concept was supported by a reading of the scripture.

There are different types of "support". Does the text of the Book of Mormon (i.e. the part that Mormons considered authoritative all along) only allow the one interpretation?

Unless one wants to argue that the preface to the BoM was/is just flippant commentary without much thought behind it. And that brings up a host of other issues.

False dichotomy. There are many gradations between it been an absolutely authoritative statement and being "just flippant commentary". From what I gather, the idea that all (or most) Native Americans are descended from the Lamanites was widely believed by Mormons at one time, but this doesn't mean that Mormon doctrine is dependent on this position being unchanging.

 

[Autodidact]

The introduction never was considered to be inspired or revealed. At one time, the Church leadership made an incorrect assumption. It was When additional information came to light over the years, the introduction was changed.

"Church leadership?" You mean the apostles and prophets, receiving direct revelation from God?

Either there is God-to-man revelation with objective content coming through divinely appointed and inspired leaders or there is not. The Mormon Church has canonized the assertion that the Lord will never allow the Prophet to lead others astray (D&C Declaration I). The question is: Has he? Can official teachings and Scriptural interpretations be set aside or deemed erroneous without invalidating the authority of those making them? This is crucial to the discussion of scientific evidence and the Book of Mormon.

from here.

President Spencer W. Kimball: The term Lamanite includes all Indians and Indian mixtures, such as the Polynesians, the Guatemalans, the Peruvians, as well as the Sioux, the Apache, the Mohawk, the Navajo, and others. It is a large group of great people. (“Of Royal Blood,” Ensign, July 1971, p. 7)


From the Book of Mormon
“And then shall the remnant of our seed know concerning us, how that we came out from Jerusalem, and that they are descendants of the Jews.” (Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 30:4)


When I was about 17 years old I saw another vision of angels in the night season after I had retired to bed I had not been asleep, … all at once the room was illuminated above the brightness of the sun an angel appeared before me … he said unto me I am a messenger sent from God, be faithful and keep his commandments in all things, he told me of a sacred record which was written on plates of gold, I saw in the vision the place where they were deposited, he said the Indians were the literal descendants of Abraham (The Papers of Joseph Smith, Vol. 2, Journal, 1832-1842, edited by Dean C. Jessee, Deseret Book Company, Salt Lake City, copyright 1992 Corporation of the President, pp. 69-70, emphasis added).


Elder Spencer W. Kimball (Apostle, President)

And Lehi and his family became the ancestors of all of the Indian and Mestizo tribes in North and South and Central America and in the islands of the sea (“Of Royal Blood,” Ensign, July 1971, p. 7, emphasis added).


So which is it? Are these men prophets, or not? Do they get divine revelation, or don't they? Because what you're saying is that taking the book and all that revelation together, they were wrong. And if they were wrong about that, what else might they be wrong about?



​

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think that gives them even bigger problems. The living prophets, receiving inspiration directly from God, reading a book "translated" by their founder, cannot figure out its most basic meaning?

What is its most basic meaning? Does the BoM actually say that the Lamanites became the Native Americans, or is it just something that was inferred from the text?

If that's their argument, they'd pretty much have to throw the whole thing out the window, because anything could turn out to mean anything. If you're going to be guided by science, why not just go directly to the science?

I don't think that's a fair assessment. They traditionally had one interpretation, and then replaced it with another interpretation that (apparently) agrees with the text. This doesn't mean that they consider themselves free to disregard the text altogether. Words have actual meanings; if we're talking about revising the way they "read between the lines", or which specific definition they use out of a range of valid definitions, I don't see why this is a problem. It doesn't mean that tomorrow they're going to start saying that where it says "down" in the BoM, it really means "up".