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

[Katzpur]

And that's what I've come to expect in these discussions with LDS members. It only takes a few questions before they either become irrational or make up an excuse to ignore things (even their own answers).

For the third time: If you have nothing to say pertaining to the OP, don't expect a response from me. I will respond to evidence supporting the OP. You apparently don't have any.

 

[Jose Fly]

Penguin,

Here you go...

Doctrine and Covenants, 32....

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet to Parley P. Pratt and Ziba Peterson, October 1830. HC 1: 118–120. Great interest and desires were felt by the elders respecting the Lamanites, of whose predicted blessings the Church had learned from the Book of Mormon. In consequence, supplication was made that the Lord would indicate his will as to whether elders should be sent at that time to the Indian tribes in the West. The revelation followed.

1–3, Parley P. Pratt and Ziba Peterson are called to preach to the Lamanites and to accompany Oliver Cowdery and Peter Whitmer, Jun.; 4–5, They are to pray for an understanding of the scriptures.

1 AND now concerning my servant Parley P. Pratt, behold, I say unto him that as I live I will that he shall declare my gospel and blearn of me, and be meek and lowly of heart.

2 And that which I have appointed unto him is that he shall ago with my servants, Oliver Cowdery and Peter Whitmer, Jun., into the wilderness among the Lamanites.

3 And Ziba Peterson also shall go with them; and I myself will go with them and be in their midst; and I am their cadvocate with the Father, and nothing shall prevail against them.

4 And they shall give aheed to that which is written, and pretend to no other revelation; and they shall pray always that I may cunfold the same to their understanding.

5 And they shall give heed unto these words and trifle not, and I will bless them. Amen.

As you can see, Joseph Smith is giving a revelation from god and refers to the Native Americans in the western US, of his time, as "Lamanites".

 

[Jose Fly]

For the third time: If you have nothing to say pertaining to the OP, don't expect a response from me. I will respond to evidence supporting the OP. You apparently don't have any.

Ah, so your own statements about the Book of Mormon are not pertinent to the OP.

Understood.

 

[Jose Fly]

How much do you know about Mitochondrial DNA, haplogroups and how they disapear through genetic drift, the founder effect, and how population bottlenecks work? Have you ever read up on the deCODE Project in Iceland, which is an excellent example of the results of a population bottleneck in completely obliterating an entire genetic line? If you can discuss your position and address the issues raised by these factors, I'd be happy to address the topic with you. Otherwise, it would be a complete waste of my time.

Population genetics is a major part of my profession. So by all means....

 

[Katzpur]

Katz, if you are looking for an alternative point of view to post #10 there are some counterpoints here: Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church

Might give you an idea of what many people will say as counterpoints.

Shall we just see who can post the most links, Balance? I have a few, but I don't think you're going to want to wade through them any more than I'm going to want to wade through yours. But thanks for at least producing something.

In my opinion, based on what I've actually read and taken the time to understand (which is a huge component), there is simply too little data for either side to try to prove conclusively that their position is correct. I have concluded that we really should not expect to find a genetic link between the Nephites and the 21st century Native Americans, and I say that based upon the factors I mentioned in my post #10. To be perfectly honest, I kind of doubt that most of the posters on RF have much more background in genetics than I do. It's so easy to say, "DNA Shows that Native Americans were Never Jewish," but a lot harder to explain how DNA shows this -- especially in your own words. Maybe that's why none have tried. You came the closest, but we all have access to the internet and can all play the "My scholar is smarter than your scholar" game.

 

[Katzpur]

Population genetics is a major part of my profession. So by all means....

Great. Then you should know better than to make some of the statements you've made. If you wish to continue this discussion, you can apply your professional knowledge to my post #10.

 

[Jose Fly]

One question I think is particularly important Katzpur is: Who (as in names) were the authors of that pre-2006 preface to the Book of Mormon?

 

[Jose Fly]

Great. Then you should know better than to make some of the statements you've made.

Which ones? Be specific.

If you wish to continue this discussion, you can apply your professional knowledge to my post #10.

All you asked in post #10 was whether someone else had any expertise in population genetics.

What exactly about pop gen did you want to talk about relative to this subject?

 

[Jose Fly]

I have concluded that we really should not expect to find a genetic link between the Nephites and the 21st century Native Americans, and I say that based upon the factors I mentioned in my post #10.

What about the "Lamanites"? Given that the Mormon god, through Joseph Smith, referred to late 1800's Native Americans as Lamanites, why wouldn't we expect to see this reflected in their genetics?

To be perfectly honest, I kind of doubt that most of the posters on RF have much more background in genetics than I do.

Then try and be patient with us.

It's so easy to say, "DNA Shows that Native Americans were Never Jewish," but a lot harder to explain how DNA shows this -- especially in your own words. Maybe that's why none have tried. You came the closest, but we all have access to the internet and can all play the "My scholar is smarter than your scholar" game.

No, more like, "Native Americans share genetic markers at specific loci with Siberian Asians and show no sings of markers unique to Semitic populations".

 

[Katzpur]

One question I think is particularly important Katzpur is: Who (as in names) were the authors of that pre-2006 preface to the Book of Mormon?

I'm not sure why that's so important to you. You wouldn't recognize any of the name anyway. I don't actually know who wrote it, but it really has no bearing on the topic.

 

[Katzpur]

All you asked in post #10 was whether someone else had any expertise in population genetics.

I asked, "How much do you know about Mitochondrial DNA, haplogroups and how they disapear through genetic drift and the founder effect, and how population bottlenecks work?"

What exactly about pop gen did you want to talk about relative to this subject?

Any of the above. They're all worth talking about. You might start by explaining how, if we were to assume that there were perhaps 10 women at the most who arrived on the American continent with Lehi, you would expect to see their mtDNA anywhere 2600 years later?

Let's say you have a man from Italy who has five daughters. How many of those daughters would have his mtDNA? None. 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.

 

[Katzpur]

Which ones? Be specific.

Well this one, for starters:

Given that the Mormon god, through Joseph Smith, referred to late 1800's Native Americans as Lamanites, why wouldn't we expect to see this reflected in their genetics?

Why on earth would you expect to see it reflected in their genetics? That's just not the kind of question I'd expect to hear from someone with a background like you say you have.

Then try and be patient with us.

You misread me. I wasn't saying that I have a lot of background in population genetics. I was saying that I don't, and that my guess is that none of us do. You say you do, and yet you ask questions like the one I just quoted.

 

[Autodidact]

Do you think that being a prophet means that every word out of your mouth is necessarily prophecy or infallible?

No, I think it's all a con job. But for Mormons, supposedly God speaks directly to these men about things religious. Starting with Joseph Smith, every one of them, right down until science found out they were completely wrong, got the same revelation from God, and each and every one of them was wrong.

This is not just something that happens in the Book, it's what it's about. It's a story of immigration and settlement, then conflict between those groups, with a visit from Jesus. That's the plot.

Here is a summary from FAIR, a Mormon outfit:

Lehi, a wealthy and faithful Israelite of the tribe of Manasseh... is told by God that Jerusalem will be destroyed and the Lehi should take his family and flee into the wilderness and that they will be led to a promised land.
[They] travel to the western hemisphere.
After arriving in the Americas, Lehi dies and the family group splits into two factions: the Lamanites (those following the eldest son Laman) and the Nephites (those following the righteous, younger son Nephi).
The Lamanites quickly fall into idolatry and reject their religious heritage and culture. The Nephites, however, generally follow the religious traditions of Abraham and Moses, though they often fall into idolatry, materialism, and other sins. A series of prophets are sent to the Nephites to keep them faithful to the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and to the teachings of Moses. These prophets also teach that the Messiah will be sent to the Israelites in Jerusalem, and that after He is crucified at Jerusalem He will appear to the Nephites and bring peace.
These two groups remain in a state of near constant warfare, with the Lamanites being significantly more numerous than the Nephites. The Nephites migrate north several times, and during the 3rd century B.C. they come into contact with a civilization descended from a group of Jews that had fled Jerusalem at the time of its destruction (the Mulekites). The Mulekites and Nephites combine and are thereafter referred to as Nephites.
The climax of the Book of Mormon is a cataclysmic destruction of much of the Nephite and Lamanite civilizations at the time of the crucifixion of Jesus in Jerusalem. ... By the mid 4th century A.D., the people are again divided into Lamanites and Nephites, but both having rejected Christ and His teachings. There is a major battle around the year A.D. 385 which destroys nearly all of the Nephites. ...
There is one additional civilization that is discussed in the Book of Mormon. The Jaredites were a group that left the Old World around the time of the Tower of Babel and were led by God to the Americas. This culture lasted from approximately 2200 B.C. until the 4th or 5th century B.C. The Mulekites had met a survivor of the Jaredites, and the Nephites found a written history of that people as recorded by a Jaredite prophet named Ether. Moroni’s abridgement of, and commentary on, this record appears within the Book of Mormon as the Book of Ether.

As you can see, after leaving Israel, each and every person and people in the Book is descended from Israelites, and the whole thing takes place in North America. There is no evidence, whether archeological, linguistic or cultural, of any of this. No artifacts, no cultural links, no architecture, no linguistic links, nothing.
And that "major battle" is supposed to involve thousands of soldiers meeting on a battlefield with chariots, horses, swords, etc. yet somehow, leaving not a single artifact or remnant of this colossal clash.

I entirely agree. The question, then, is what implications this should have for Mormon belief and doctrine.

Well, I think the implication is that the BoM, as interpreted by God's supposed prophets, is wrong. Fundamentally, deeply, seriously wrong.

 

[Autodidact]

Why has nobody responded to my post #10? Have all you brilliant minds absolutely nothing to say to it? I am not going to waste my time exploring any further tangents. Msizer made a claim. I asked him to substantiate it. He has not done so and neither has anyone else. If you have nothing to say pertaining to the OP, don't expect a response from me.

No, actually what you said is if he doesn't prove his expertise to you, the discussion would be a complete waste of time.

And to the Head ******* (you know who you are): I don't know if you are addressing your posts to me or to the world in general, or if you just like to see your words on the screen, but in the event that you are specifically addressing me, I would like to remind you that I have you on ignore. That means you are wasting you time. (If it's any consolation, you are one truly unique *******. You are the only one of the hundreds of posters on RF who has earned the right to never have me read another one of your posts.)

Your loss. I guess my claims will remain unrefuted then. btw I do think it's rather bad form to address people you're ignoring, but that's just me.

 

[Autodidact]

And they have, or at least one has. See Katzpur's post above.


Maybe it is significant, but there a difference between "a reasonable inference" and "the only reasonable inference".


Well, that sounds like that might be something. Do you have a source?


No, not anyone. Only those who rely on the assumption that their position is correct to support their argument that their position is correct.

9/10: I gave you quotes from Smith on the subject. Here are some more:

In this important and interesting book the [1] history of ancient America is unfolded, from its [2] first settlement by a colony that came from the tower of Babel, at the [3] confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian era. We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by [4] two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites and came directly from the tower of Babel. The second race came directly from the city of Jerusalem, about six hundred years before Christ. They were principally Israelites, of the descendants of Joseph. The Jaredites were [5] destroyed about the time that the Israelites came from Jerusalem, who succeeded them in the inheritance of the country. The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The [6] remnants are the Indians that now inhabit this country.
[Wentworth letter]

“By it, we learn, that our western tribes of Indians, are descendants from that Joseph that was sold into Egypt, and that the land of America is a promised land unto them, and unto it, all the tribes of Israel will come, with as many of the gentiles as shall comply with the requisitions of the new covenant.”

[Saxton letter]

There are more, if you want them.

 

[Autodidact]

Shall we just see who can post the most links, Balance? I have a few, but I don't think you're going to want to wade through them any more than I'm going to want to wade through yours. But thanks for at least producing something.

In my opinion, based on what I've actually read and taken the time to understand (which is a huge component), there is simply too little data for either side to try to prove conclusively that their position is correct. I have concluded that we really should not expect to find a genetic link between the Nephites and the 21st century Native Americans, and I say that based upon the factors I mentioned in my post #10. To be perfectly honest, I kind of doubt that most of the posters on RF have much more background in genetics than I do. It's so easy to say, "DNA Shows that Native Americans were Never Jewish," but a lot harder to explain how DNA shows this -- especially in your own words. Maybe that's why none have tried. You came the closest, but we all have access to the internet and can all play the "My scholar is smarter than your scholar" game.

It's as if we didn't have entire university departments devoted to the archeology, linguistics and history of Native Americans. As if we didn't know anything about genetics. We just have no idea; it's a standoff.


We should really not expect to find a genetic link between any BoM people and any Native American people because there isn't one. However, for over a century, the chief book of the LDS church, the BoM, and every single prophet and apostle, including Brigham Young and Joseph Smith, taught that the Indians--all of them--were descended from BoM people. As the evidece began to accumulate that this was wrong, this somehow became most of them, a few of them, and now, suddenly, none of them.

I have little or no background in DNA and genetics. That's why I accept the mainstream view of the experts. And of course, these experts aren't out to disprove the BoM, it doesn't enter into their world. They're just trying to learn whatever they can about the people of the new world. And what they have found is no:
artifacts
culture
architecture
language
DNA
or anything else to link them. This is what Katzpur is calling "too little data to prove conclusively which side is correct." There aren't even two sides. There's science, and there's the LDS church, books and teachings. Personally, I accept science.

 

[Autodidact]

I asked, "How much do you know about Mitochondrial DNA, haplogroups and how they disapear through genetic drift and the founder effect, and how population bottlenecks work?"

Any of the above. They're all worth talking about. You might start by explaining how, if we were to assume that there were perhaps 10 women at the most who arrived on the American continent with Lehi, you would expect to see their mtDNA anywhere 2600 years later? Let's say you have a man from Italy who has five daughters. How many of those daughters would have his mtDNA? None. 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.

Let's simplify this. If the American Indians were descended from Israelites, there would be some genetic markers, either in men or women, consistent with that. There aren't. Researchers whose goal is not to discredit the BoM, but just to find out how these people got here, have concluded, based chiefly on genetic evidence, that they originated in Asia, specifically Siberia.

studies have consistently shown similarities between American Indians and recent populations in Asia and Siberia, but also unique American characteristics, which the very early crania have also shown. Evidence for only four mtDNA lineages, characterizing over 95 percent of all modern American Indian populations, may suggest a limited number of founding groups migrating from Asia into the New World. Recently, however, a fifth mtDNA lineage named "X" has turned up in living American Indians and in prehistoric remains for which there does not appear to be an Asian origin. The first variant of X was found in Europeans and may have originated in Eurasia.[Smithsonian]

Studying modern people’s mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited from the mother, suggests all the Native Americans in South America split off from a single Northeast Asian group that migrated over about 15,000 years ago.

Read More Skulls vs. DNA: Zeroing In on American Origins | Wired Science | Wired.com
Discrepancy between Cranial and DNA Data of Early Americans: Implications for American Peopling. Ivan Perez et al., PLoS One 4(5). Published May 29, 2009.

" Recent data based on archeological evidence and environmental records suggest that humans entered the Americas from Beringia as early as 15,000 years ago, and the dispersal occurred along the deglaciated Pacific coastline," said Antonio Torroni of Università di Pavia, Italy. "Our study now reveals a novel alternative scenario: Two almost concomitant paths of migration, both from Beringia about 15,000 to 17,000 years ago, led to the dispersal of Paleo-Indians—the first Americans."
. Distinctive Paleo-Indian Migration Routes from Beringia Marked by Two Rare MtDNA Haplogroups. Current Biology, Online January 8; In Print January 13, 2009

Here's what you don't find, and I want to emphasize these people are not setting out to disprove the BoM, and are not invested in one origin or another. You don't find any genetic, linguistic, archeological or cultural evidence that Native Americans descended from Israelites. Bupkus.
​

​

 

[Autodidact]

Well this one, for starters:

Why on earth would you expect to see it reflected in their genetics? That's just not the kind of question I'd expect to hear from someone with a background like you say you have.

You misread me. I wasn't saying that I have a lot of background in population genetics. I was saying that I don't, and that my guess is that none of us do. You say you do, and yet you ask questions like the one I just quoted.

Well if you don't, why do you feel qualified to reject the consensus of the many scholars, from a host of disciplines, who do?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

......

Love this stuff....

 

[Katzpur]

No, more like, "Native Americans share genetic markers at specific loci with Siberian Asians and show no sings of markers unique to Semitic populations".

If the American continent had been empty at the time Lehi and his family arrived here, our critics claims would be correct. That wasn't the case, though.

Besides, so far, only low resolution studies have been conducted. High resolution studies are very expensive and, for this reason, very rare. When people make statements such as the one in the OP, it's as if they are assuming we're at the end of population genomics, when in fact we've really just scratched the surface of it. mtDNA contains 16,569 pieces of genetic information. The reason mtDNA works well for tracing populations is that it doesn't recombine with other DNA every generation. When it does, though, and when there is a genetic mutation, it will be passed on to the next generation. In terms of genetic studies on Native American populations, geneticists have studied less than 300 samples. That is next to nothing! How can anyone say it's conclusive is beyond me.