DNA doesn't prove Book of Mormon historicity, either (OPEN)

Mormon Times ^ | May 17, 2010 | Michael R. Ash

[greyfoxx39]

 

 

 

DNA doesn't prove Book of Mormon historicity, either

 

By Michael R. Ash

Monday, May. 17, 2010

The past several issues have established that DNA studies do not refute the historicity of the Book of Mormon. The flip side to this issue is the erroneous claim made by some Latter-day Saints that DNA studies prove the Book of Mormon.

Because the pro-DNA argument is closely tied to a specific geographical model, I'd like to reiterate that there is no official geography for Book of Mormon events. Eventually, I'll discuss the various geography hypotheses and will offer the reasons why I believe that the Mesoamerican model fits best.

But for now it's important to understand that believing Latter-day Saints can respectfully disagree as to where the events described in the Book of Mormon took place.

 

Elder Dallin H. Oaks, speaking of those who participate in non-official venues wherein church-related topics are discussed, observed that sometimes "a volunteer will step forward to present what he or she considers to be the church's position. Sometimes these volunteers are well-informed and capable, and they contribute to a balanced presentation. Sometimes they are not, and their contribution makes matters worse. When attacked by error, truth is better served by silence than by a bad argument."

I wish to "liken" Elder Oaks' comment to the arguments made by those who claim that DNA studies offer evidence or proof for the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Briefly outlined, here is the position taken by those who make such a claim:

1. DNA evidence for the Lehites should be discernible in modern DNA studies.
2. All Native Americans belong to one of the following five mitochondrial lineages (haplogroups): A, B, C, D and X.
3. Haplogroup X, the least common of the five groups, appears to be traceable to the ancient Middle East.
4. Ergo, haplogroup X provides evidence for the existence of Lehites.

The first part of this argument is based on the faulty assumption (as pointed out in the past several issues) that we should expect to find Lehite DNA. The second and third parts of the argument are somewhat accurate (with some caveats). The fourth part, however, is a faulty conclusion unsupported by what we actually know about the origin and distribution of haplogroup X.

Not long after the initial haplotypes A-D were identified in Native American populations, a fifth and more rare haplotype (dubbed "X") was also found among some Native Americans. Sister lineages to the Amerindian haplogroup X are found at low frequencies in many geographic regions of the world including Western Europe, North Africa, East Asia and the Middle East. The presence of haplogroup X in the Americas in primarily limited to the Great Lakes area (which is one of the proposed models for Book of Mormon geography), but it is also found to lesser extents in other parts of North America.

Thanks to an improved analysis of mitochondrial DNA genomes and a greater number of samples available, the Native American haplogroup X is currently termed X2a, a lineage that is not found anywhere else in the world.

As noted in past articles, mtDNA mutations are measured by molecular clocks used to calculate age estimates of the different branches in the mtDNA tree. Currently, there are five different molecular clocks that have been proposed using all or a considerable section of the mtDNA genome. All five clocks provide close estimates for haplogroup X2a indicating that it pre-dates the Lehites' arrival to the Americas by several thousands of years. (For more depth on the measurement of these molecular clocks, see Ugo Perego, "The Book of Mormon and the Origin of Native Americans from a Maternally Inherited DNA Standpoint.") In reality, based on current DNA science and the lack of additional evidence, X2a cannot be linked to the Lehites.

The irony for many of those who attempt to use DNA studies to buttress a belief in the Book of Mormon is that all respectable DNA studies accept (as a fundamental part of DNA science) the principle of evolution and that humans came to the New World over 12,000 years ago. Those who attempt to argue that DNA studies prove the Book of Mormon, however, typically reject the principle of evolution and the early age of man.

Basically, when it comes to DNA science they want to have their cake and eat it too.

I accept the current state of DNA research by those who are experts in the field, adding that it is premature, at best, and irresponsible, at worst, to claim that DNA research may be employed to prove or disprove the authenticity of the Nephite scripture.

[greyfoxx39]

Disclaimer: I am former LDS and "anti" mormonism. I post articles from official mormon sources that often relate to current discussions taking place on the forum to provide a means for open discussion in the Religion forum.

 

FROM THE RELIGION FORUM MODERATOR:

Open threads are a town square. Antagonism though not encouraged, should be expected

Posters may argue for or against beliefs of any kind. They may tear down other’s beliefs. They may ridicule.

On all threads, but particularly “open” threads, posters must never “make it personal.” Reading minds and attributing motives are forms of “making it personal.” Making a thread “about” another Freeper is “making it personal.”

When in doubt, review your use of the pronoun “you” before hitting “enter.”

Like the Smoky Backroom, the conversation may be offensive to some.

Thin-skinned posters will be booted from “open” threads because in the town square, they are the disrupters.

http://www.freerepublic.com/~religionmoderator/

 Thin-skinned (emotional, whiney or mercurial temper) posters are the disruptors on open threads.

 

[greyfoxx39]

Inman ping

[svcw]

Just so it is clear (seems to be a problem getting this fact), this article is from an LDS owned site.
I love the spin in the article. I can’t prove I am 45, you will just have to take my word for it, because you can’t prove I am not.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

Personally I believe that too many of the religious discussions around here become confrontational and damaging to our, hopefully, common goals.

All of us, Jew and Christian, share an enemy who is eager to cut our throats.

There are a few people around here who just need to CHILL OUT!

[svcw]

Your point would be well taken if LDS were Christians.

[greyfoxx39]

There are a few people around here who just need to CHILL OUT!

It appears that the only confrontational comment on this thread is yours.

[ejonesie22]

All of us are also pursued by an enemy who wants our soul.

We die once but eternity is forever.

Life requires a little multitasking sometimes...

[greyfoxx39]

A comment on the article from Mormon Times:

"well said, Oxy-Moroni. my question is why are the apologists of the LDS Church determining the theological direction of the Church?

The Mormons have prophets and apostles who supposedly receive direct revelation from God. shouldn't what they have said in the past and in the present settle the matter? and yet the apologists must spin increasingly complex and unlikely scenarios in order to validate a book that when you read it sounds like the same guy wrote the whole thing."

Mormon Times

[SWAMPSNIPER]

You sound just like a muslim!

[katana]

I have respect for the way many Mormons lead their family lives and their tendency toward political conservatism and loyalty to country.

But I'd give better odds on finding Middle Earth or Narnia than physical proof that the Book of Mormon is anything but the fantasies of one Joseph Smith.

[Elsie]

There are a few people around here who just need to CHILL OUT!

I guess you failed to read this:

---

 

 

FROM THE RELIGION FORUM MODERATOR:

Open threads are a town square. Antagonism though not encouraged, should be expected

Posters may argue for or against beliefs of any kind. They may tear down other’s beliefs. They may ridicule.

On all threads, but particularly “open” threads, posters must never “make it personal.” Reading minds and attributing motives are forms of “making it personal.” Making a thread “about” another Freeper is “making it personal.”

When in doubt, review your use of the pronoun “you” before hitting “enter.”

Like the Smoky Backroom, the conversation may be offensive to some.

Thin-skinned posters will be booted from “open” threads because in the town square, they are the disrupters.

http://www.freerepublic.com/~religionmoderator/

 

 

[Elsie]

 

You sound just like a muslim!

---

---

 

 

“I Will Be a Second Mohammed”

In the heat of the Missouri “Mormon War” of 1838, Joseph Smith made the following claim, “I will be to this generation a second Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was ‘the Alcoran [Koran] or the Sword.’ So shall it eventually be with us—‘Joseph Smith or the Sword!’ ”[1] 

It is most interesting that a self-proclaimed Christian prophet would liken himself to Mohammed, the founder of Islam. His own comparison invites us to take a closer look as well. And when we do, we find some striking—and troubling—parallels. Consider the following.

• Mohammed and Joseph Smith both had humble beginnings. Neither had formal religious connections or upbringing, and both were relatively uneducated. Both founded new religions by creating their own scriptures. In fact, followers of both prophets claim these scriptures are miracles since their authors were the most simple and uneducated of men.[2]

• Both prophets claim of having angel visitations, and of receiving divine revelation to restore pure religion to the earth again. Mohammed was told that both Jews and Christians had long since corrupted their scriptures and religion. In like manner, Joseph Smith was told that all of Christianity had become corrupt, and that consequently the Bible itself was no longer reliable. In both cases, this corruption required a complete restoration of both scripture and religion. Nothing which preceded either prophet could be relied upon any longer. Both prophets claim they were used of God to restore eternal truths which once existed on earth, but had been lost due to human corruption.

• Both prophets created new scripture which borrowed heavily from the Bible, but with a substantially new “spin.” In his Koran, Mohammed appropriates a number of Biblical themes and characters—but he changes the complete sense of many passages, claiming to “correct” the Bible. In so doing he changes many doctrines, introducing his own in their place. In like manner, Joseph Smith created the Book of Mormon, much of which is plagiarized directly from the King James Bible. Interestingly, the Book of Mormon claims that this same Bible has been substantially corrupted and is therefore unreliable. In addition, Joseph Smith went so far as to actually create his own version of the Bible itself, the “Inspired Version,” in which he both adds and deletes significant portions of text, claiming he is “correcting” it. In so doing he also changes many doctrines, introducing his own in their place.

• As a part of their new scriptural “spin,” both prophets saw themselves as prophesied in scripture, and both saw themselves as a continuation of a long line of Biblical prophets. Mohammed saw himself as a continuation of the ministry of Moses and Jesus. Joseph Smith saw himself as a successor to Enoch, Melchizedek, Joseph and Moses. Joseph Smith actually wrote himself into his own version of the Bible—by name.

• Both prophets held up their own scripture as superior to the Bible. Mohammed claimed that the Koran was a perfect copy of the original which was in heaven. The Koran is therefore held to be absolutely perfect, far superior to the Bible and superceding it. In like manner, Joseph Smith also made the following claim. “I told the Brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding its precepts, than by any other book.”[3]

• Despite their claim that the Bible was corrupt, both prophets admonished their followers to adhere to its teachings. An obvious contradiction, this led to selective acceptance of some portions and wholesale rejection of others. As a result, the Bible is accepted by both groups of followers only to the extent that it agrees with their prophet’s own superior revelation.

• Both Mohammed and Joseph Smith taught that true salvation was to be found only in their respective religions. Those who would not accept their message were considered “infidels,” pagans or Gentiles. In so doing, both prophets became the enemy of genuine Christianity, and have led many people away from the Christ of the Bible.

• Both prophets encountered fierce opposition to their new religions and had to flee from town to town because of threats on their lives. Both retaliated to this opposition by forming their own militias. Both ultimately set up their own towns as model societies.

• Both Mohammed and Joseph Smith left unclear instructions about their successors. The majority of Mohammed’s followers, Sunni Muslims, believe they were to elect their new leader, whereas the minority, Shiite Muslims, believe Mohammed’s son was to be their next leader. Similarly, the majority of Joseph Smith’s followers, Mormons, believed their next prophet should have been the existing leader of their quorum of twelve apostles, whereas the minority, RLDS, believed Joseph Smith’s own son should have been their next prophet. Differences on this issue, and many others, have created substantial tension between these rival groups of each prophet.

• Mohammed taught that Jesus was just another of a long line of human prophets, of which he was the last. He taught that he was superior to Christ and superceded Him. In comparison, Joseph Smith also made the following claim.

“I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him, but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.”[4] In light of these parallels, perhaps Joseph Smith’s claim to be a second Mohammed unwittingly became his most genuine prophecy of all.

---

[1] Joseph Smith made this statement at the conclusion of a speech in the public square at Far West, Missouri on October 14, 1838. This particular quote is documented in Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History, second edition, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971), p. 230–231. Fawn Brodie’s footnote regarding this speech contains valuable information, and follows. “Except where noted, all the details of this chapter [16] are taken from the History of the [Mormon] Church. This speech, however, was not recorded there, and the report given here is based upon the accounts of seven men. See the affidavits of T.B. Marsh, Orson Hyde, George M. Hinkle, John Corrill, W.W. Phelps, Samson Avard, and Reed Peck in Correspondence, Orders, etc., pp. 57–9, 97–129. The Marsh and Hyde account, which was made on October 24, is particularly important. Part of it was reproduced in History of the [Mormon] Church, Vol. III, p. 167. See also the Peck manuscript, p. 80. Joseph himself barely mentioned the speech in his history; see Vol. III, p. 162.”

[2] John Ankerberg & John Weldon, The Facts on Islam, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1998), pp.8–9. Eric Johnson, Joseph Smith  & Muhammed, (El Cajon, CA: Mormonism Research Ministry, 1998), pp. 6–7.

[3] Documentary History of the [Mormon] Church, vol.4, pp.461.

[4] Documentary History of the [Mormon] Church, vol.6, pp.408–409.

[greyfoxx39]

Well said.

[ejonesie22]

Snappy retort...

[svcw]

Huh?

Could you expand on your statement, because the leap from what I said to what you replied makes no sense.

So I am guessing here, you forgot some of the full thought.

I said: Your point would be well taken if LDS were Christians.

And you replied: You sound just like a muslim!

[ejonesie22]

(ouch)

[greyfoxx39]

Here ya go!

No charge.

[ejonesie22]

Perhaps his Babel Fish Internet translator is stuck on Farsi...

[svcw]

Must be. I have had strange replies before and in general you can decode them but this one....nope.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

Sunni’s VS the Shiites!