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

[Deborah Judge]

I had a pretty room mate that somehow got singled out by mormons as fair game. I told them, "If you will come to my church, I will go to yours." The one who had been proselytizing the longest, recognized the challenge, and agreed to come to my church. Within 10 minutes of the elders being at my church, a woman came up to them and told them that she had been a high up leader of a part of the Mormon church, and they actually recognized who she was. I still do not know what that woman told them, but after she prayed with them they were ready to go.
In the car on the way back to their apartment, they were really quiet. Finally, the elder who had not been proselytizing very long said "You aren't going to want to come to our church are you." It was more of a statement than a question. Then I asked them both, "If Jesus died on the cross for the sins of all, and Christianity obviously survived and came over to the Americas, then why would there be a need for Him to come to the Americas? His work was finished when he said 'It is finished.'"
It took them another couple of minutes to speak after that, and when they did, they said "Thank you, and good night." Never saw them again.
It doesn't matter that their whole belief system is grounded in lies, what matters is that they recognized the truth when they heard it, because it was said in love and not criticism.

 

[Katzpur]

I am sorry Katzpur. but let me be the first one to introduce you to the world of science.

You can dispense with the sarcasm any time. Based on your posts so far, it's clear the world of science isn't exactly your strongest suit.

in which in order to prove a theory, no matter how insignificant to a greater research or how inane it is, you have to provide a series of evidence on which you have laboured for hours either in the lab, in the field, and supported it with hundreds of hours of leaning on the academic books. in order to verify with yourself over and over again, that you got it right.

And just what theory have I attempted to prove? The OP challenged Mormons to defend a premise which we don't even claim. Why should we have to defend something we don't even believe?

In contrast. repeating absurdities that the rest of the world doesn't relate to other than a small insignificant religious minority will cause no effect on the general public of the world. we will be unmoved as ever. and will stick to the scientific articles which are published and produced by hard working, honest, and reliable men and women of science and academy.

That's nice. So why don't you explain how the "hard working, honest and reliable men and women of science" have concluded that today's population of Native Americans would carry the genetic markers of two Middle-Eastern families who migrated here 2600 years ago, if said migration had actually taken place.

Oh boy. you even read internet posts literally. it is a phrase. a term. a figure of speech. not the actual spiritual terminology.

Okay, so I misread you. Please accept my apologies. Your response to my initial question was, "We already know that it would be impossible to trace the claim that Middle easterners have genetically reincarnated into Native Americans." If it would be impossible to do this, it would be equally impossible to do the reverse, which is all I've been saying all along. It appears we agree after all.

Actually you did. I just gave you 100% logical response and it just went swoosh across your face. yet somehow you missed it. you discussed the logistics with me. so I answered you. asking for the very basics.

Please quote me. I would like to see where I even mentioned the logistics of making such a voyage.

 

[Caladan]

You can dispense with the sarcasm any time. Based on your posts so far, it's clear the world of science isn't exactly your strongest suit.

Well. do enlighten me. *smirk*.

And just what theory have I attempted to prove? The OP challenged Mormons to defend a premise which we don't even claim. Why should we have to defend something we don't even believe?

And here you are crawling your way out of the debate before throwing even one significant blow at your opponent. you are debating with me the possibility of middle eastern men making the long and impossible route from their region to North America perhaps sometime in the Iron Age. this is the basic which I am debating you. evidently you are too concerned to even go through that challenge to polish you dogma.

That's nice. So why don't you explain how the "hard working, honest and reliable men and women of science" have concluded that today's population of Native Americans would carry the genetic markers of two Middle-Eastern families who migrated here 2600 years ago, if said migration had actually taken place.

They haven't. they have concluded that today's remnants of the Native American population share the Haplogroup Q (Y-DNA) with today's indigenous populations of Siberia.

Okay, so I misread you. Please accept my apologies. Your response to my initial question was, "We already know that it would be impossible to trace the claim that Middle easterners have genetically reincarnated into Native Americans." If it would be impossible to do this, it would be equally impossible to do the reverse, which is all I've been saying all along. It appears we agree after all.

No we do not agree at all. in archaeology and genetics. you MUST have material evidence to make any theory. so much more as a wild an unfounded claim as an adventurous migration all the way from the hills of Judah to the marshlands of North America. in the real world. the archaeological world, the genetic world. or any other field of science or history. not only this would not be seriously considered. but a researchers who would try to pull it off would find himself very quickly ex communicated from the academic and professional community.

Please quote me. I would like to see where I even mentioned the logistics of making such a voyage.

Lets try a different approach. so that perhaps with luck you will be comfortable to even touch the subject. after all is it your set of beliefs and religious baggage. you should be happy to debate it.
You reversed the scenario. and asked if we would expect to find genetic evidence if the scenario was reversed. if Native Americans arrived to the middle east 600 years before the Christian era, and married into the local population.
And I asked the first, rational, and basic questions any archaeologist, geneticist who specializes in migration of populations would ask. why would they go all the way through an impossible journey. and not stop at other more reasonable and hospitable geographical locations along the way? what is the basic common sense that you find in making a thousands and thousands of miles journey from the middle east to North America. or visa versa?
It is a fair question. that if you really consider these beliefs as plausible you should have asked yourself a very long time ago.
since historians know, that even the Phoenicians, a highly proficient society of seafarers stuck to the Mediterranean basin. since the simple reality is, that although and because they had advanced seafaring, navigating, and trading skills. they were also very realistic in their enterprises, routes, and travel interests.

 

[Autodidact]

Facts? Hardly. We do not claim that "the Americas were settled by people from the Middle East." We claim that two nuclear families plus one single male came here from the Middle East, settled somewhere on the American continent and intermarried with the existing population, roughly 2600 years ago. ... you might start by at least getting the initial premise right.

Well, that's the position of a few Mormons now. Originally, when the BoM was published, the position of Joseph Smith and the LDS Church was that all American Indians, as well as Pacific Islanders, were Lammanites. Then over time they decided that people from the Middle East were "the principal ancestors" of American Indians. Now Katzpur seems to have withdrawn to a few families.

"The Book of Mormon is a record of the forefathers of our western Tribes of Indians... By it we learn that our western tribes of Indians are descendants from that Joseph that was sold into Egypt…".

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]- The Prophet Joseph Smith, Official Church Publication Times and Seasons, (March 1, 1842) III:707.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"In this important and interesting book, the history of America is unfolded, ... 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 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 remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country."[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] - The Prophet Joseph Smith, Letter to Rochester, New York, newspaper editor N. C. Saxton, January 4, 1833.[/FONT]

One thing the BoM never mentions, which is extremely odd, is the existence of any people anywhere in the Americas, other than these Middle Eastern immigrants.

"We also bear testimony that the "Indians" (so called) of North and South America are a remnant of the tribes of Israel; as is now made manifest by the discovery and revelation of their ancient oracles and records."

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]And thus you shall take your journey into the regions westward, unto the land of Missouri, unto the borders of the Lamanites.[/FONT]

D & C 54:8[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]And now, behold, I say unto you that you shall go unto the Lamanites and preach my gospel unto them[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]D&C 28: 8[/FONT] (IF there were no remaining Lamanites, how could they go unto them?
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] - OFFICIAL CHURCH PROCLAMATION OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST, OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS. April 6, 1845[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"For after the book of which I have spoken shall come forth...there shall be many which shall believe the words which are written; and they shall carry them forth unto the remnant of our seed. And then shall the remnant of our seed know concerning us, how that we came out of Jerusalem, and that they are the descendants of the Jews."[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]2 Nephi 29: 3-4 Clearly, the BoM itself tells the Indians that THEY ARE THE DESCENDANTS OF THE JEWS.
[/FONT]According to the BoM, what happened to these 2 families?

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"And it came to pass that they did multiply and spread, and did go forth from the land southward to the land northward, and did spread insomuch that they began to cover the face of the whole earth, from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east."[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Helaman 3:8[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"These natives belong to the house of Israel.... The Lord has taken from this race any disposition for improvement even to this day; the best of them consider it a disgrace to work. Whatever drudgery is performed is done by their squaws, or by slaves captured from neighboring, tribes or bands. Ask any of them to work; the reply is, "me big Indian, me no work."... It is prophesied by Nephi as follows: "For after the book [Book of Mormon] of which I have spoken shall come forth, and be written unto the Gentiles, and sealed up again unto the Lord, there shall be many which shall believe the words which are written; and they shall carry them forth unto the remnant of our seed [the present American Indians.] 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."[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses Vol. 10, p.359
[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"We believe that the existing Indian tribes are all direct descendants of Lehi and his company, and that therefore they have sprung from men all of whom were of the house of Israel."[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Apostle James E. Talmage, The Articles of Faith, p.293
[/FONT]

In the light of revelation it is absurd for anyone to maintain that the Nephites and Lamanites did not possess this northern land... In the face of this evidence coming from the Prophet Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer, we cannot say that the Nephites and Lamanites did not possess the territory of the United States and that the Hill Cumorah is in Central America.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Apostle and Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, Church News, Feb. 27, 1954, pp. 2-3[/FONT]

"There are more than 60 million people of Lamanite extraction. It is no accident that the Church now prospers among them in Mexico, Central and South America, in the islands of the sea, and among the Indian tribes of North America."

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
- Apostle Boyd K. Packer, Church Ensign, Mar 1974, page 3[/FONT]

An introductory paragraph added to the Book of Mormon in the 1981 revision states in part: "After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians."

[wiki]

I can't imagine where people get the idea that Mormon doctrine teaches that American Indians are descendants of Middle Eastern Jews, unless it's by reading the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the writings of the prophets and leaders of the church.

 

[Autodidact]

If our actual claim is BS,

That may be your actual claim, today. It is not the claim of the BoM, or of the Mormon leaders, from Joseph Smith to the 1980's, as I have shown above.

 

[Autodidact]

And just what theory have I attempted to prove? The OP challenged Mormons to defend a premise which we don't even claim. Why should we have to defend something we don't even believe?

I understand why you want to distance yourself from what was the official position of the LDS church from its inception until it was destroyed by scientific advances in the 1980's. It was wrong. One of the cool things about the Mormon Church is that it is allowed to change, unlike some other religions. However, to deny that it was the official position of the LDS Church is not accurate.

 

[Deborah Judge]

Thank you for giving me the dictionary definition of truth, I didn't realize that I needed it, but if you must assert your superior understanding of it, it's a free country.
The point was, Mormonism doesn't dispute what Jesus did and what He went through to do it. If Mormons see that everything after that is kind of a moot point, it kind of leaves them in a position of questioning what they believe, and that was the goal.
If I had delivered that last point in a directly challenging way, their defenses would have shot up. But I didn't. I let them come and see for themselves what the difference was, and then I summarized. By the way, the whole "true religion" thing, tell me what is the point of religion? In your own opinion, if not to connect people to God.
If you were going to say anything else, you might be missing the point, as most religions have.

 

[Caladan]

Thank you for giving me the dictionary definition of truth, I didn't realize that I needed it, but if you must assert your superior understanding of it, it's a free country.

Sorry to disappoint you. but this an international forum. no one is asking American permission to dispel Christian myths. Mormon or otherwise.

The point was, Mormonism doesn't dispute what Jesus did and what He went through to do it. If Mormons see that everything after that is kind of a moot point, it kind of leaves them in a position of questioning what they believe, and that was the goal.
If I had delivered that last point in a directly challenging way, their defenses would have shot up. But I didn't. I let them come and see for themselves what the difference was, and then I summarized. By the way, the whole "true religion" thing, tell me what is the point of religion? In your own opinion, if not to connect people to God.
If you were going to say anything else, you might be missing the point, as most religions have.

True religions are obviously the ones who remained true to their region of residence. they do not carry any spiritual inheritance. they simply exist as they have always existed in the deserts of Arabia and Judea.
Mormon claims of having a relation to Middle eastern Hebrews or Jews (Via the Native populations of their country), has nothing to stand on just like the general dying myths of general Christianity such as the claims that a Jewish man turned water into wine. they are both unscientific. unhistorical. and unfounded. based in zero evidence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If two Native American families plus one single Native American male had migrated to the Middle East 2600 years ago and had intermarried with the native Middle-Eastern population, would anybody today claim that the Middle East was settled by the Native Americans? Would you expect to see DNA evidence to support such a claim?

Depends how prolific they were.

I mean, many of the men of Eastern Europe and the Middle East (1 man in 20 in some areas, IIRC) can trace their Y chromosome back to Genghis Khan. And he was just one guy, not two families.

 

[Frank Merton]

One of the cool things about the Mormon Church is that it is allowed to change.

That is interesting. Is there some official ritual or procedure they follow? Who decides?

I know the Roman Catholic church can change via a Church Council or a Papal Edict, but they would never admit it was a change.

All religions, of course, slowly change as people die off and are replaced by new generations. The culture changes and the religion changes with it, although no one really notices.

 

[Looncall]

Thank you for giving me the dictionary definition of truth, I didn't realize that I needed it, but if you must assert your superior understanding of it, it's a free country.
The point was, Mormonism doesn't dispute what Jesus did and what He went through to do it. If Mormons see that everything after that is kind of a moot point, it kind of leaves them in a position of questioning what they believe, and that was the goal.
If I had delivered that last point in a directly challenging way, their defenses would have shot up. But I didn't. I let them come and see for themselves what the difference was, and then I summarized. By the way, the whole "true religion" thing, tell me what is the point of religion? In your own opinion, if not to connect people to God.
If you were going to say anything else, you might be missing the point, as most religions have.

The point of religion is to enable clerics and rulers who support them to extract power and wealth from everyone else.

 

[Autodidact]

That is interesting. Is there some official ritual or procedure they follow? Who decides?

I know the Roman Catholic church can change via a Church Council or a Papal Edict, but they would never admit it was a change.

All religions, of course, slowly change as people die off and are replaced by new generations. The culture changes and the religion changes with it, although no one really notices.

The current prophet is supposed to continue to receive revelations from God. So when a given policy or theology is damaging enough to the church, and enough political pressure is applied, he gets a revelation to change it.

 

[Jacksnyte]

The current prophet is supposed to continue to receive revelations from God. So when a given policy or theology is damaging enough to the church, and enough political pressure is applied, he gets a revelation to change it.

Sounds really conveenient!

[youtube]WnCZxLvYXI8[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnCZxLvYXI8

 

[gerobbins]

Which is 100% BS. and has no basis in reality, history or genetic evidence.
No one has proven the claim that Gabriel had a little pet talk with Muhammad in the cave is false either. but you don't see most modern people in North America wear a Galabia and get their new copy of the Noble Qur'an.
We already know. that it would be impossible to trace the claim that Middle easterners have genetically reincarnated into Native Americans. which only makes the claim more ridiculous, baseless and eventually obsolete.


How? how would they do that?
How would Native Americans reach the Middle east. why would they reach the middle east? why not stop at another geographical location along the long route to the middle east?

How do we not know that the Americas were not settled by Aliens? I mean we have no proof one way or another.

 

[Katzpur]

Well. do enlighten me. *smirk*.

”Smirking” is easy. Respectful debate requires a good deal more self-control and maturity.

And here you are crawling your way out of the debate before throwing even one significant blow at your opponent.

I am not “crawling out of the debate.” As far as “throwing blows at my opponent” is concerned, I’m not sure which opponent you’re referring to. It appears I have quite a few of them. I did respond to MSizer’s OP many posts back. I began by pointing out that his initial premise was flawed and that we do not claim what he was suggesting we claim. The question to be argued really isn't, "Are today's Native Americans of Middle-eastern ancestry?", but "Is itpossible 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?" I went on to explain that 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.

you are debating with me the possibility of middle eastern men making the long and impossible route from their region to North America perhaps sometime in the Iron Age. this is the basic which I am debating you.

No, that’s not what I am debating at all. Look, I know you are of Jewish descent yourself, but I really haven’t read enough of your posts to know if you are even a theist. If you are, and if you believe in the Abrahamic God, you would have to concede that there are many Old Testament stories that simply cannot be proven to have ever happened. There isn’t even any historical evidence to support the Exodus. As a theist, a Christian and a Latter-day Saint, I believe that with God’s help, Lehi’s voyage would not have been impossible, but I have never claimed it could be proven to have happened any more than I have claimed that Moses turned the waters of the Nile into blood or that God spoke to him from a burning bush. I’m sorry if I’m not debating what you want me to debate, but the topic of the OP concerns DNA evidence for the Book of Mormon and that’s all it concerns.

They haven't. they have concluded that today's remnants of the Native American population share the Haplogroup Q (Y-DNA) with today's indigenous populations of Siberia.

You didn’t answer my question. I’ll repeat it. I asked you to assume, for the sake of argument, that two Middle-Eastern families actually had migrated here 2600 years, and to tell me why scientists would expect today's population of Native Americans to carry the genetic markers of these individuals.

in archaeology and genetics. you MUST have material evidence to make any theory. so much more as a wild an unfounded claim as an adventurous migration all the way from the hills of Judah to the marshlands of North America. in the real world. the archaeological world, the genetic world. or any other field of science or history. not only this would not be seriously considered. but a researchers who would try to pull it off would find himself very quickly ex communicated from the academic and professional community.

We haven’t made any archeological or genetic claims. That’s what you seem to be missing. The Book of Mormon is not an archeological or genetic document any more than the Bible is. It is a religious text. If we were to say that DNA evidence proves the American Indians to be descendants of ancient Middle-Easterners, you would have the right to demand evidence, but we haven’t done that. If we had claimed that certain archeological finds were ancient Book of Mormon ruins, it would be entirely logical for you to ask for proof, but we haven’t done that either.

Lets try a different approach. so that perhaps with luck you will be comfortable to even touch the subject. after all is it your set of beliefs and religious baggage. you should be happy to debate it.

There you go again with this condescending, superior attitude. Why, Caladan? Aside from believing differently than you, what have I done to deserve this unabashed contempt?

You reversed the scenario. and asked if we would expect to find genetic evidence if the scenario was reversed. if Native Americans arrived to the middle east 600 years before the Christian era, and married into the local population. And I asked the first, rational, and basic questions any archaeologist, geneticist who specializes in migration of populations would ask. why would they go all the way through an impossible journey. and not stop at other more reasonable and hospitable geographical locations along the way? what is the basic common sense that you find in making a thousands and thousands of miles journey from the middle east to North America. or visa versa?

It is a fair question. that if you really consider these beliefs as plausible you should have asked yourself a very long time ago. since historians know, that even the Phoenicians, a highly proficient society of seafarers stuck to the Mediterranean basin. since the simple reality is, that although and because they had advanced seafaring, navigating, and trading skills. they were also very realistic in their enterprises, routes, and travel interests.

Perhaps it is a fair question, even if it is off-topic. Here’s my answer: According to the Book of Mormon, the Lord said to Nephi, “inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall be led to a land of promise; yea, even a land which I have prepared for you; yea, a land which is choice above all other hands.” Now, having responded to your question, I am going to ask you a second time to respond to mine. I believe it is an equally fair question: If two Native American families plus one single Native American male had migrated to the Middle East 2600 years ago and had intermarried with the native Middle-Eastern population, would anybody today claim that the Middle East was settled by the Native Americans? Would you expect to see DNA evidence to support such a claim?

 

[Katzpur]

Well, that's the position of a few Mormons now.

I think it’s the position of most educated Mormons now.

Originally, when the BoM was published, the position of Joseph Smith and the LDS Church was that all American Indians, as well as Pacific Islanders, were Lammanites.

Joseph Smith undoubtedly believed that which he wrote on the title page of the Book of Mormon. It is not found anywhere within the text of the book nor did he claim it as revelation. It merely represented what he personally felt to be an accurate statement. Turns out he was wrong.

Then over time they decided that people from the Middle East were "the principal ancestors" of American Indians.

Over time, a lot of things happened and “they” held a variety of differing opinions on the matter. As early as 1875, George M Ottinger, a faculty member at the University of Deseret (later the University of Utah) suggested that other groups besides the people whose story is told in the Book of Mormon had colonized the American continent. In the early 1900’s LDS General Authorities were saying much the same thing. B. H. Roberts insisted that migrations from northeast Asia over the Bering Strait were absolutely “indisputable.” LDS publications were teaching this as early as 1902.

In 1927, 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. [It is] not improbably that American has received other immigrants from Asia and other parts of the globe.” In 1929, long, long before the DNA issue was ever brought to light, Anthony W. Ivins, a counselor to the LDS Prophet, said, “We must be careful in the conclusions 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.” This same line of thought continued to be taught in essays written by noted LDS scholars throughout the ‘50s, ‘60s, 70’s and 80’s.

Finally, Bruce R. McConkie, who oversaw the editing of the 1981 version of the Book of Mormon, inserted the statement to the effect that the Lamanites were the “principal ancestors” of the American Indians, did so of his own volition. Had another of the General Authorities been given that assignment, the text would likely have read differently. (McConkie made a number of statements over the years which were his opinion only, and which did not reflect the views of the Church as a whole.)

Now Katzpur seems to have withdrawn to a few families.

It has always been taught that the migration involved two nuclear families and one single male. That has never changed.

One thing the BoM never mentions, which is extremely odd, is the existence of any people anywhere in the Americas, other than these Middle Eastern immigrants.

The Book of Mormon does not specifically state this. There are, however, numerous clues throughout the book that this is the case. There are groups such as the Amalekites, whose origin is unknown, who came under Nephite power. Other groups are described as “Lamanitish” and “Ishmaelitish,” indicating a foreign origin. Early on in the book, Nephi write that he was made king over his people. Had there been only a couple of dozen people, there would hardly have been a need for a king. It is also mentioned that early in their history, the Nephites also were involved in an economy which involved trade with other groups of people. These facts have been noted for years and are not desperate reversals of the LDS position as you would have people believe.

That may be your actual claim, today. It is not the claim of the BoM, or of the Mormon leaders, from Joseph Smith to the 1980's, as I have shown above.

And as I have shown above, there have always been LDS leaders who believed otherwise.

I understand why you want to distance yourself from what was the official position of the LDS church from its inception until it was destroyed by scientific advances in the 1980's. It was wrong. However, to deny that it was the official position of the LDS Church is not accurate.

And I can understand why you want to believe that there was an “official position” when there really wasn’t – and isn’t – one. It wasn’t “destroyed by scientific advances in the 1980s” because it didn’t exist. There have always been a variety of different viewpoints, but despite what you say, one was no more “official” than the next. The very real possibility of Lehi’s group arriving on an already populated continent has been considered by LDS scholars and the Church’s leadership for over 100 years.

One of the cool things about the Mormon Church is that it is allowed to change, unlike some other religions.

Well, we’re kind of damned if we do and damned if we don’t, huh? We can’t win either way.

 

[Katzpur]

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.” 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.

Other factors are the “Founder Effect” and “Population Bottlenecks.” The deCODE Project in Iceland is an excellent example of the results of a population bottleneck which completely obliterated an entire genetic line in that country. Depending upon how heavily the continent was populated when Lehi and his small group arrived, intermarriage between his group and the existing population would have made his mtDNA disappear completely. That's why we should not be surprised if we can't find it now. It doesn't mean it was never there. It's just the way genetic drift works.

 

[Katzpur]

This will be my final post on this thread. I know that I will be accused of bailing out or of running and hiding because I was unable to answer the questions that were posed. I believe that my more than 30 posts on this thread are evidence to the contrary. I have wasted enough time. Furthermore, when you’re the only one arguing for your position, it’s almost impossible to keep up with your opposition. I don’t think any of the rest of you would want to be on a team of one against a team of a dozen. Much as I suspect it will disappoint you all, I’m here to say that I am not another MadHatter or another FFH. I am not going to go around in circles on this debate for another 20 pages. Please, continue without me…

 

[Caladan]

I’m here to say that I am not another MadHatter or another FFH. I am not going to go around in circles on this debate for another 20 pages. Please, continue without me…

No one here is comparing members. Katzpur. neither myself nor Autodidact would spend a good portion of the evening debating you if we thought that it is costing a valuable portion of our time.
This is a religious debate forum. and for any religious (or social and political) beliefs that we are confronted with, and which we recognise to be unconstructive we will debate. it is of course the reason, why we log on and spend time on the forum. to sharpen our understanding of current and historical religious and political affairs.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

Well, you know. Some of us have a life, some not so much. :sarcastic

It was a slow day at work, gimme a break . Besides, I'm not one for making comments to a topic ignorantly.