Hebrew DNA found in South America? [OPEN]

Was Hebrew DNA recently found in American Indian populations in South America? According to Scott R. Woodward, executive director of Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation, a DNA marker, called the "Cohen modal haplotype," sometimes associated with Hebrew people, has been found in Colombia, Brazil and Bolivia.

But it probably has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon -- at least not directly.

For years several critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and of the Book of Mormon have claimed that the lack of Hebrew DNA markers in living Native American populations is evidence the book can't be true. They say the book's description of ancient immigrations of Israelites is fictional.

"But," said Woodward, "as Hugh Nibley used to say, 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.' "

Critic Thomas Murphy, for example, wrote in one article about how the Cohen modal haplotype had been found in the Lemba clan in Africa. The Lemba clan's oral tradition claims it has Jewish ancestors.

Murphy then complained, "If the (Book of Mormon) documented actual Israelite migrations to the New World, then one would expect to find similar evidence to that found in a Lemba clan in one or more Native American populations. Such evidence, however, has not been forthcoming."

So will Murphy and other critics use this new evidence of Hebrew DNA markers to prove the Book of Mormon is correct? Probably not. But neither should anyone else.

According to Woodward, the way critics have used DNA studies to attack the Book of Mormon is "clearly wrong." And it would be equally wrong to use similar DNA evidence to try to prove it.

According to Woodward, while forensic DNA (popularized in TV shows like "CSI") looks for the sections of DNA that vary greatly from individual to individual, the sections of DNA used for studying large groups are much smaller and do not change from individual to individual.

Studies using this second type of DNA yield differing levels of reliability or, as Woodward calls it, "resolution."

At a lower resolution the confidence in the results goes down. At higher resolution confidence goes up in the results.

The critics' problem now is what they do with the low-resolution discovery of Hebrew DNA in American Indian populations.

For people who believe that the Book of Mormon is a true account, the problem is to resist the temptation to misuse this new discovery.

Woodward says that most likely, when higher-resolution tests are used, we will learn that the Hebrew DNA in native populations can be traced to conquistadors whose ancestors intermarried with Jewish people in Spain or even more modern migrations.

Ironically, it is the misuse of evidence that gave critics fuel to make their DNA arguments in the first place. According to Woodward, the critics are attacking the straw man that all American Indians are only descendants of the migrations described in the Book of Mormon and from no other source.

Although some Latter-day Saints have assumed this was the case, this is not a claim the Book of Mormon itself actually makes. Scholars have argued for more than 50 years that the book allows for the migrations meeting an existing population.

This completely undermines the critics' conclusions. They argue with evangelic zeal that the Book of Mormon demands that no other DNA came to America but from Book of Mormon groups.

Woodward also sees that it is essential to read the Book of Mormon story closely to understand what type of DNA the Book of Mormon people would have had. The Book of Mormon describes different migrations to the New World. The most prominent account is the 600-B.C. departure from Jerusalem of a small group led by a prophet named Lehi. But determining Lehi's DNA is difficult because the book claims he is not even Jewish, but a descendant of the biblical Joseph.

According to Woodward, even if you assume we knew what DNA to look for, finding DNA evidence of Book of Mormon people may be very difficult. When a small group of people intermarry into a large population, the DNA markers that might identify their descendants could entirely disappear -- even though their genealogical descendants could number in the millions.

This means it is possible that almost every American Indian alive today could be genealogically related to Lehi's family but still retain no identifiable DNA marker to prove it. In other words, you could be related genealogically to and perhaps even feel a spiritual kinship with an ancestor but still not have any vestige of his DNA.

"I don't dismiss the possibility," said Woodward, "but the probability is pretty low."

Woodward speculated about it, imagining he were able to identify pieces of DNA that would be part of Lehi's gene pool. Then, imagine if a match was found in the Native American population.

But even then, Woodward would be cautious. "It could have been other people who share the same (DNA) markers," said Woodward about the imaginary scenario.

"It's an amazingly complex picture. To think that you can prove (group relationships) like you can use DNA to identify a (criminal) is not on the same scale of scientific inquiry."

Like the Book of Mormon itself, from records buried for centuries in the Hill Cumorah, genetic "proof" may remain hid up unto the Lord.

The following has been adapted from

http://www.irr.org/mit/lamanites-dna-bom.html

They go into far greater details than I in the following abridgement.

Relevant Scientific Facts and Data

This section will briefly review the implications of the following facts:
1. DNA studies can determine ethnic history
2. Indigenous peoples of the Americas lack Semitic or Hebraic genetic traces
3. Mongolian/Northern Asian ethnic descent clearly established
4. There is general scientific consensus on these points

DNA studies can determine ethnic history

The question for today’s Mormons, especially those of Native American ancestry is, should they really be considering themselves Lamanites? Is this an authentic ethnic heritage they have a reason to be proud of, or have they been led astray and proselytized under false pretenses?

Genetic and ethnic links can be traced along both paternal and maternal genetic lines. The mapping is done using mitochondrial DNA (for maternal lines) and Y chromosome DNA (for paternal lines), grouping people by unique DNA lineages. According to Simon G. Southerton, senior research scientist with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) in Canberra, Australia, “Mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome DNA are particularly useful for studying human population because they remain remarkably intact from generation to generation.” (Southerton, 2004, p. 67).

Along maternal lines, DNA research done with over 7000 Native Americans from about 175 different groups showed that maternal lineages among Native Americans predominantly fall into four lines, designated A, B, C and D. All four of these are found in moderate frequencies in Asian populations, but are absent in all others. Therefore, 96.5% of Native Americans from Alaska to Southern Argentina show predominant Asian ancestry.

Paternal studies focus on molecular distinctives of the Y chromosome. Among Native Americans the most prevalent Y chromosome lineage has been designated Q. Once again, when compared with Asian, European and Middle Eastern Y chromosome types, Q is rare in either European or Middle Eastern populations but appear with moderate frequency in Asian populations. The Q lineage of the Y chromosome is present in 90% of South American Indians and about 75% of North American Indians, once again demonstrating the predominant Asian background of Native Americans (Southerton, 2004, pp. 88-93).

While not accepting it as conclusive, Mormon scholars acknowledge the legitimacy and efficacy of DNA studies for determining a person or group’s ethnic history. Sorenson gives the example of how DNA testing was used to confirm that a group of black South Africans known as the Lemba people were of Jewish origin. The group, which included Jewish priests, migrated first to Yemen and then to Southern Africa over 2000 years ago (Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 9:2, p. 70). Southerton found it notable that Sorenson acknowledges the persistence of these DNA markers in a group of people nearly 3000 years removed from their ethnic Semitic origin, yet is skeptical of its ability to do the same for a more recent Jewish ancestry in the Americas (Southerton, 2004, p. 190).

Indigenous peoples of the Americas lack Semitic or Hebraic genetic traces

Southerton states:

While apologists have long accepted the fact that other groups outside of the Book of Mormon record made their way to the New World, few apologists would have predicted that the Lamanite influence would be virtually undetectable. The accumulating DNA data has provided the first quantitative measures of an Israelite presence in the New World gene pool and it is slim to none (Southerton, 2004, p. 202).

Mongolian/Northern Asian ethnic descent clearly established.

DNA studies have only served to confirm the Northern Asian link to Native Americans. It has long been recognized that there are strong physical resemblances, as Southerton summarizes:

“The two groups share morphological features characteristic of Mongoloid peoples such as straight black hair, prominent cheek bones, spare body hair, reddish to brown skin, relatively flat faces and the Mongoloid sacral spot (Crawford 1998). Other frequently shared traits are darkly colored eyes, the Mongoloid eye fold, and dental characteristics such as shovel-shaped incisors.” (Southerton, 2004, p. 79).

The following has been adapted from

http://www.irr.org/mit/lamanites-dna-bom.html

They go into far greater details than I in the following abridgement.

This section examines ways Mormon apologists and scholars have attempted to defend the Book of Mormon. There has been no “official” response from the Mormon Church regarding the DNA research, Native Americans and the implications for the Book of Mormon, other than the statement posted on the Mormon.org website under the heading “Mistakes in the News” which states:
DNA and the Book of Mormon, Various media outlets, 11 November 2003

“The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ is exactly what it claims to be — a record of God’s dealings with peoples of ancient America and a second witness of the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ. The strongest witness of the Book of Mormon is to be obtained by living the Christ-centered principles contained in its pages and by praying about its truthfulness. Recent attacks on the veracity of the Book of Mormon based on DNA evidence are ill considered. Nothing in the Book of Mormon precludes migration into the Americas by peoples of Asiatic origin. The scientific issues relating to DNA, however, are numerous and complex. Those interested in a more detailed analysis of those issues are referred to the resources below.”

(http://www.lds.org/newsroom/mistakes/0,15331,3885-1-18078,00.html)

APOLOGETIC #1 “Before DNA” (John L. Sorenson and Matthew Roper, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, 2003).

In this article the authors argue for a comparatively small population of Nephites occupying a limited section of Mesoamerica and surrounded by a much larger non-Semitic population. The presence of non-Israelite peoples can be assumed, even though they are not mentioned, because the small group of people mentioned in 2 Nephi 5 would not have had the ability to build temples, put together an army or engage in wars. Since the Book of Mormon attributes such things to the Nephites, this must mean that their small group was surrounded by much larger groups of people. These people then joined with the Nephites in order to help them accomplish all the tasks that are mentioned in the Book of Mormon. In the process of intermarriage, all traces of Jewish ancestry were lost.

It is very interesting to note defenders of the Book of Mormon utilizing the same arguments to support the Book of Mormon’s historicity and it’s authenticity that critics of Mormonism have used for the past several decades to discredit it. 10 Yet, in their appeal to a new understanding of Book of Mormon history, Mormon apologists who seek to defuse DNA-based criticism, provide interpretations that run counter to the explanations and defenses of the Book of Mormon given in materials published by the Mormon Church.

. . . Sorenson and Roper are in essence saying, “Our highest spiritual leaders and our primary teaching manuals have been wrong for over 150 years. Presidents, Prophets and Apostles have been in error and have been leading Mormon people astray for the entire history of the Church up until the present.” Will the Mormon Church’s spiritual leadership defer to the apologists and academicians? Given the articles provided on the official Mormon website, it would appear to some degree they already have. . .

What is notable is that both Mormon and non-Mormon writers find glaring problems with proposed limited geography theories. Mormon writer Earl M. Wunderli provides an extensive and detailed critique of the Limited geography theory advocated by Sorenson and others. His rejection of it is based primarily on internal evidence from the Book of Mormon and he draws the following conclusions in a recent Dialogue article:

“Sorenson and other Mormon scholars have recognized that the traditional hemispheric model no longer works, but their solution of a limited geography model does not work either. Sorenson’s model requires contorting terminology and text to make a case riven by esoteric complication. His model wanders far afield from what the Book of Mormon straightforwardly describes. It solves many problems with the hemispheric model but only at great cost to the Book of Mormon’s internal reliability as scripture, as a book that presumably means what it says “ (Earl M. Wunderli, “Critique of a Limited Geography for the Book of Mormon Events,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, v. 35:3 [Fall 2002], p. 197).

In his article, “Reinventing Lamanite Identity,” Metcalfe provides evidence from the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith himself that the Mormon apologists’ novel interpretations are unsupported and unwarranted. For example he cites the Mormon Scripture, Joseph Smith – History, v. 34 which says that the Book of Mormon plates contain “an account of the former inhabitants of this [the North American] continent, and the source from whence they sprang.” Metcalfe concludes that:

“. . . apologetic scholars have an arduous task ahead of them. They have yet to explain cogently why all the Book of Mormon characters—God included—seemingly know nothing about the hordes of indigenous peoples that the revisionist theories require; … and why their word should count more than that of Mormon prophets on the one hand, and that of secular scholars on the other (Metcalfe, p. 23).”

FOOTNOTES

10 Arguments like the diversity of languages, the inability of a small group of immigrants to populate and settle the North and South American continents in such short time and the Asian rather than Semitic ethnic ancestry evident in the great majority of Native American peoples, all troubled early Mormon historian and apologist B.H. Roberts in the early 1920s. Critics of the Mormon Church recognized the inherent problems of the hemispheric model of Book of Mormon history and culture and were quick to point out the problems raised by science. Yet Roberts was loath to employ a limited geographic model in order to solve these problems because to do so would go beyond what a natural reading of the Book of Mormon allowed (Studies of the Book of Mormon, p. 92-93). For example, Roberts writes:

“Can we answer that the Nephites and the people of Mulek – really constituting one people – occupied a very much more restricted area of the American Continents than has heretofore been supposed, and that this fact (assumed here for the argument) would leave the rest of the continents – by far the greater part of them say – to be inhabited by other races, speaking other tongues, developing other cultures, and making, though absolutely unknown to Book of Mormon people, other histories? … To this answer there would be the objection that if such other races or tribes existed then the Book of Mormon is silent about them. .. To make this seem possible the area occupied by the Nephites and Lamanites would have to be extremely limited, much more limited, I fear, than the Book of Mormon would admit of our assuming” (Roberts, pp. 92-93).

The following has been adapted from

http://www.irr.org/mit/lamanites-dna-bom.html

They go into far greater details than I in the following abridgement.

This section continues to examine ways Mormon apologists and scholars have attempted to defend the Book of Mormon

APOLOGY #2 - “DNA and the Book of Mormon: A Phylogenetic Perspective” (Michael F. Whiting, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, 2003).

Applying DNA studies to the Book of Mormon assumes the validity of the “global colonization hypothesis”.

“The local colonization hypothesis is more limited in scope, includes many more complicating factors from a genetic perspective, is much more difficult to investigate by way of DNA evidence, and, in my view and that of Book of Mormon scholars, is a more accurate interpretation of the Lamanite lineage history. This hypothesis suggests that when the three colonizing parties came to the New World, the land was already occupied in whole or in part by people of an unknown genetic heritage. “(Whiting, p. 31). He later states that according to the local colonization hypothesis, “the Lamanite lineage did not populate the whole North and South American continent.” (Whiting, p. 33). Given his starting point, Whiting’s argument is logical, scientifically sound and accurately relates the difficulties such a scenario would cause for even finding Lamanite genes.

However, this is a limited disclosure at best and a somewhat misleading since other Latter-day Scriptures and Mormon sources do identify the Lamanites. For example, the previously cited statement in the Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith — History, 1:34, where Joseph Smith relates that “[Moroni] said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from which they sprang.”

A later Mormon publication, a brochure distributed at the Hill Cumorah pageant, states: “About A.D. 421 Moroni, the last survivor of a great civilization that inhabited the Americas from 600 B.C. to A.D. 420, buried in this hill a set of gold plates on which he recorded the history of his people” (“Welcome to Historic Mormon Country”).

These descriptions, provided by the founding Mormon Prophet (11) and current leaders of the Church he established, do not seem to fit with a limited geography hypothesis that now acknowledges the first inhabitants of the Americas were from Northern Asia thousands of years before the Jaredite landing, and which limits Book of Mormon peoples to a small 400 mile stretch of Central America.

The limited geography / local colonization hypothesis requires a series of assumptions that go contrary to the natural reading of the Book of Mormon—witness the hemispheric geography understanding propagated by generations of Mormon leaders. Also, adopting a limited geography for the Book of Mormon comes at the cost of rejecting both the teachings of the Prophets of the Mormon Church and their interpretations of Mormon Scriptures.

APOLOGY #3 “A Few Thoughts from a Believing Scientist” (John M. Butler, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, 2003, pp. 36-37)

Butler’s primary point is stated early on in his short article. The Book of Mormon does not provide sufficient information on the biological backgrounds of Ishamel’s wife and the wives of his two sons (who would have provided the mitochondrial DNA lineages of the Nephites and Lamanites).

“Thus we are left without enough information from the Book of Mormon record itself to identify definitively an appropriate genetic source population that could be used to calibrate the claims of the Book of Mormon. Likewise, we do not have sufficient information to declare the Book of Mormon not true” (p. 36).

Nor, according to Butler, is it possible to know if there is any genetic tie to the biblical patriarchs via Y chromosome male lineage.

“… it is unclear whether or not these [Lehi’s] offspring would also have Manasseh, Joseph, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham in their patrilineage” (p. 36).

After rehearsing other Book of Mormon ambiguities, Butler is content to settle for a scientific stalemate.

“Thus, we are left where we started (and where I believe the Lord intended us to be)—in the realm of faith. A spiritual witness is the only way to know the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. Although DNA studies have made links between Native Americans and Asians, these studies in no way invalidate the Book of Mormon despite the loud voices of detractors. “(p. 37).

The Book of Mormon is indeed lacking certain lineage details, yet how necessary are they, in light of the proclamations of the living prophets? Should Mormon people believe Spencer W. Kimball when he is quoted in The Ensign of July 1971, pp. 7ff saying,

“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. “(p. 7)… There are no blessings, of all the imaginable ones, to which you are not entitled—you, the Lamanites—when you are righteous. You are of royal blood, the children of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Lehi “(page 10).

In an attempt to leave the door open for other populations in the new world at the arrival of Lehi, Butler also questions the complete annihilation of the supposed Jaredite nation as related in the Book of Mormon. He suggests that Ether’s prophecy only relates to Coriantumr’s household, leaving open the possibility that breakaway groups of Jaredite descent would have not participated in the battle and would have survived. And yet, even a cursory reading of Ether chapters 13-15 makes it clear that while Coriantumr and all his household were to repent to avoid destruction, if they did not the people would be destroyed for “every soul should be destroyed save it were Coriantumr” (Ether 13:20-21). There is no repentance, and war rages over the whole face of the land (v. 25) which lasts for years resulting in the deaths of millions of men as well as their wives and children and culminates in a final battle. Prior to this final battle, for four years the Jaredite people gather together “that they might get all who were upon the face of the land” (Ether 15:14). Once the people are gathered there is one final six-day battle at the Hill Ramah where everyone is killed except Coriantumr.

Accepting a limited geography/local colonization hypothesis requires a series of assumptions that go contrary to the natural reading of the Book of Mormon, a reading both assumed and taught by generations of Mormon leaders. Further, these assumptions are dictated by apologetic necessity.

FOOTNOTES
11 For additional documented examples of statements by Joseph Smith regarding Book of Mormon geography see Luke Wilson’s paper, “Does Archaeology Support the Book of Mormon? A survey of the evidence”, 1992, pp. 6-10, available in print form from IRR or online here: http://irr.org/mit/bomarch2.html.

The following has been adapted from

http://www.irr.org/mit/lamanites-dna-bom.html

They go into far greater details than I in the following abridgement.

This section continues to examine ways Mormon apologists and scholars have attempted to defend the Book of Mormon

APOLOGETIC #4 “Who Are the Children of Lehi?” (D. Jeffrey Meldrum and Trent D. Stephens, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, 2003, pp. 38-51.)

This article forthrightly acknowledges the biological and cultural connection between New World and Asian populations, and cites genetic studies that conclude that “the origins of 99.6 percent of Native Americans are accounted for now by the five haplogroups: A,B,C,D, and X” and that the data gathered, “in concert with archaeological and anthropological studies, have largely confirmed the scientific hypothesis that northeast Asia is the primary source of the majority of the early inhabitants of the Americas” (p. 42).

The authors acknowledge that the hypothesis that all Native Americans are of Middle Eastern (Semitic) origins is advocated by people who accept the Book of Mormon, but admit this hypothesis is refuted by the genetic data (pp. 42-43). Like the previously cited apologists, Meldrum and Stephens also propose a limited scope and setting for the Book of Mormon:

“The Book of Mormon is the account of a small group of people who lived on the American continent, interacting to some degree with the indigenous population but relatively isolated from the general historical events occurring elsewhere in the Americas” (p. 44.)

Meldrum and Stephens concede that the assumption that all Native Americans are Lehi’s direct descendants “seems to have been held by many early members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and is still held by most today” (p. 40). Where has this view come from? According to the authors, “A superficial consideration of the Book of Mormon account has led to misconceptions about its scope and context” (p. 40). Unfortunately, what is left unsaid is where these “misconceptions” and “assumptions” originated. As shown previously, most Mormons today hold these views because they came from the teachings of their highest spiritual leaders. (See, for example, the 1990 letter from the First Presidency on the location of the Hill Cumorah.)

A unique contribution by Meldrum and Stephens is the idea that from Lehi there arose Nephite and Lamanite ‘cultures’ as opposed to ethnic groups. The Lamanites in particular should be understood as a cultural-political-religious group, not one defined by lineage (p. 39). . . . . his concept is likened to those of ‘covenant’ and ‘kinship’ as social and religious unifying factors. These effectively render genetic connections irrelevant. According to Meldrum and Stephens,

“The data suggest that a small colony under the leadership of Nephi established kinship within the fabric of a larger resident population. In effect, it was a situation of ‘them and us’—Lamanites and Nephites. The Nephites were the believers, while the Lamanites were everyone else (see for example Jacob 1:14; Alma 3:11). This perception differs little from the concept of “Jew and Gentile,” the latter term encompassing all non Jews. With final destruction of the Nephite kinship, all who remained in the Americas were “Lamanites. … All Native Americans are in fact descended from these “Lamanites”—these “Gentiles” of the record of Nephi’s people” (p. 51).

While gutting the term Lamanite of any ethnic significance removes the indicting sting of DNA evidence contra the Book of Mormon, it in turn raises an important question. If since the close of the Book of Mormon everyone is a Lamanite, then Lamanite is no longer a valid ethnic identity or category. But if Lamanite is not an ethnic category connected to Hebrews who immigrated to the Western Hemisphere, then what hope is there of fulfilling the Book of Mormon prophecies that a Hebrew remnant would be gathered in the last days? As seen previously in this paper, Mormon Presidents, Apostles and General Authorities have spoken repeatedly of Lamanite conversions from all over the world as a fulfillment of Book of Mormon prophecies. These prophecies, which refer to the “gathering of Israel” (3 Nephi 21) the “remnant of our seed” (2 Nephi 30:3-4; D&C 19:26-27), and “the Day of the Lamanite” (Helaman 15:11-16), depend to a large degree on the identification of Lamanites as the Jewish remnant that is to be gathered.

All such Book of Mormon prophetic interpretations are rendered null and void if, as Meldrum and Stephens suggest, “all who remained in the Americas were ‘Lamanites.’”

APOLOGETIC #5 “Does DNA Evidence Refute the Book of Mormon?” (Jeffrey D. Lindsay, Ph.D., 16 November 2003).

In this 70+ page article (including over 10 pages of resource and bibliographic material) Mormon apologist Lindsay presents a dizzying array of quotes, sources and commentary pertaining to DNA studies. (13) His conclusions are similar to those of other Mormon scholar-apologists, to wit, the evidence is too complex, confusing and uncertain to allow us to be able to draw any negative conclusions about the Book of Mormon:

“It is clear that the origins of the Americas are more complicated than previously thought. This applies not only to scientists, but to those who accept the Book of Mormon. Just as scientific progress requires abandoning old errant assumptions, increased knowledge of the Americas and improved understanding of the Book of Mormon text itself shows that many Latter-day Saints have incorrectly assumed that the Americas were a vacuum prior to Lehi’s arrival, and that Lehi’s group provided the primary genetic source for all Native Americas. These errant assumptions should be abandoned, but since the text does not make such claims, all we need abandon is our misunderstanding, not a sacred volume of scripture that is indeed an authentic ancient text.”

Lindsay, like the apologists before him, concedes significant ground on “old errant assumptions” regarding the Book of Mormon, and yet like the aforementioned writers, makes no attempt to determine or identify where such ideas originated; ideas that now need to be abandoned. Lindsey also declares the Book of Mormon to be “an authentic ancient text” which in itself is a judgment of an historical, scientific nature.

FOOTNOTES

13 http://www.lds.org/newsroom/files/jeff_lindsay_dna.pdf

The following has been adapted from

http://www.irr.org/mit/lamanites-dna-bom.html

They go into far greater details than I in the following abridgement. This is the final segment.

Resultant Tensions and Conflicts

A. Scientific facts run counter to official teachings.

Each of the articles provided on the official Mormon website frankly admit that the scientific evidence runs counter to traditional teachings. As Leavitt, Marshall and Crandall state in their article in a recent Dialogue, “Clearly, many Mormon leaders have taught the hemispheric model, so it should be no surprise that this is the scenario accepted by the majority of church members.” (“The Search for the Seed of Lehi, Leavitt, et. al., Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 36:4 (Winter 2003), p. 137). Millions of Latter-day Saints have understood and embraced the clear teachings of their most trusted spiritual leaders and now a broad spectrum of objectively collected, carefully studied scientific data shows these leaders have been wrong. According to Mormon scholar Trent Stephens (Ph.D., professor of anatomy and embryology at Idaho State University) writing in the March 2004 issue of Sunstone magazine, there are four ways that people may react to the data regarding Native Americans and the Book of Mormon:

One—The data refute the historic authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Therefore, belief in the book is unfounded and should be abandoned.

Two—The data may be ignored. In spite of the data, people may continue to believe that the Book of Mormon is true and that all pre-Columbian Native Americans were descended from people of Middle Eastern decent.

Three—People may take a wait-and-see attitude. Future data may exonerate their belief that the Book of Mormon is true and that all pre-Columbian Native Americans were descended from Middle Eastern populations.

Four—The Book of Mormon story is still true. However, the data refute the notion that all pre-Columbian Native Americans were descended from people of Middle Eastern descent. (Trent D. Stephens, Ph.d., “Now What?”, Sunstone, Issue 131 (March 2004), p. 26-27).

Stephens acknowledges that “Rejecting the authenticity of the Book of Mormon because its story is not supported by scientific evidence may be the most practical and rational choice” (p. 27). However, none of the above will likely be attractive options to faithful Mormons. . . . . . On the other hand, those who ignore or set aside the facts in an effort to continue following the spiritual leadership of the Mormon Church, may well find themselves with less immediate tension, but are likely to face increasing amounts of cognitive dissonance that results in a death of their spiritual and intellectual balance and integrity.

B. Current scholarly explanations undermine historic teachings of Mormon spiritual leaders. As this article has shown and Southerton explains:

“Most Mormon apologists now accept that Native Americans are principally descended from Siberian ancestors who migrated across the Bering Strait thousands of years before Lehi arrived and that the descendants of Lehi made up an infinitesimally smaller proportion of the New World Populations. However, this change in perspective has not been granted the church’s blessing in any official way.… There is the further problem for apologists that in trying to rescue the Book of Mormon from science, they have had to reject the clear pronouncements of every church president from Joseph Smith to the present.” (Southerton, 2004, p. 202).

Mormon people are now faced with a new tension. To whom will they listen in order to gain a true theological understanding and framework of Mormon history and scriptures? Do they follow the General Authorities or the apologists? What does it mean for the concept of “modern-day revelation” when the Mormon Church’s spiritual leaders begin deferring to apologists and scientists?

When Mormon missionaries seek to convert Native Americans in Mexico or Chile, do they take their cues from past General Conference talks or the latest FARMS articles? When a Mormon is called to teach the Gospel Doctrine class at his ward, and is given the Book of Mormon study manual, does he perpetuate the “errant assumptions” contained in the manual produced by the Church, or does he go with factually true material provided by the church scholars, knowing this material contradicts the manual and the general understanding of the members in his class?

On July 29, 1979 the Church section of the Deseret News contained the following blunt editorial regarding new theories of Book of Mormon geography:

“… To guess where Zarahemla stood can in no wise add to anyone’s faith. But to raise doubts in people’s minds about the location of the Hill Cumorah, and thus challenge the words of the prophets concerning the place where Moroni buried the records, is most certainly harmful.…Why not leave hidden the things that the Lord has hidden? If he wants the geography of the Book of Mormon revealed, He will do so through His prophet, and not through some writer who wishes to enlighten the world despite his utter lack of inspiration on the point. (Deseret News, Church section, week ending July 29, 1979, p. 16)

In the Church News, week ending May 9, 1992, p. 14, an article appeared titled, “Sacred Text is a book of doctrine, not geography,” which cited various Mormon leaders and concluded:

“It is folly to associate oneself with any peculiar notion… Such ventures in thought are merely guesses, and such speculation leads to confusion. … [If] the time comes, or that it is expedient for the saints to have this information, it will come to them through the regularly established source, the prophet, seer, and revelator, the Presiding High Priest of the Church and no one else.”

A July 26, 2004 USA Today article titled “DNA Research and Mormon scholars changing basic beliefs” stated:

“…some church members who have always understood themselves in light of Mormon teachings about the people known as Lamanites are suffering identity crisis. “It’s very difficult. It is almost traumatizing,” said Jose Aloayza, a Midvale attorney who likened facing this new reality to staring into a spiritual abyss. “Its that serious, that real,” said Aloayza, a Peruvian native born into the church and still a member. “I’m almost here feeling I need an apology. Our prophets should have known better. That’s the feeling I get.”

A good example of a recent scholarly examination of the Bible’s reliability and historical authenticity is Jeffrey L. Sheler’s book, Is the Bible True: How Modern Debates and Discoveries Affirm the Essence of the Scriptures, Harper San Francisco, 1999, 278 pages. Sheler, an award-winning U.S. News & World Report religion writer, notes in the conclusion of his book:

“And yet as we have seen, the Bible and the faith it commends are by no means entirely detached from historical examination. To the contrary, we have discovered an abundance of evidence — both direct and indirect — that sheds light on the historical claims and the context of the Scriptures. As we have examined that evidence and considered scholarly arguments drawn from it, and as we have compared the Scriptures to other written histories from the ancient Near East, we have found the Bible consistently and substantially affirmed as a credible and reliable source of history” (p. 254).....

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.