Concerned About Dna Evidence

[nolank]

I was as shocked as most of the members of the Mormon church when no Israelite DNA was found in the indigious people tested throughout the Americas.

Much like the churches who believe in a flat earth or that the earth is only a few thousand years old, this seems to be an obvious scientific blow to the belief that the Book of Mormon was inspired scriptures, translated by a prophet, seer and revelator under the influence of the Spirit.

If the Book of Mormon was written by Joseph instead, the Mormon church doesn't have the authorized priesthood restored to the earth as I was taught. It's purpose for existance is threatened.

I would like to understand how the Mormon Church can recover from this scientific proof? Can it really be only a matter of faith?

[Daniel]

I don't see DNA as a problem. It is still a new science. Who knows what we will learn in the future.

I was as shocked as most of the members

I don't think that many people were really shocked or lost their faith as some would think. Yes some members couldn't cope with it but for others we have faith in a matter of time all things will be revealed.

There are plenty of good articles on the subject produced by FAIR. So start here http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_and_DNA_evidence , http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai195.html and we can discuss some points of view. However this really isn't an introduction so I am moving this thread to Learn About The Church Section.

[jwhitlock]

I'm not aware that that many LDS were shocked by it.

In fact, if you go and consider the claims made by critics of the Church that this disproves the Book of Mormon, and then really look at the scientific evidence, along with what the Book of Mormon really claims, the whole DNA "controversy" goes away.

The references by QuorumPrez are a good place to start. The critics actual case is very, very weak.

[Dale]

Actually a DNA link in common between Jews and Native American's has been established. But critic's of the Book of Mormon will argue the Q-M33 Marker was the result of a very ancient migration. That the marker's introduction was to early to help the Book of Mormon. But i read an article by David Stewart that presented information that this claim is questionable. That the marker may have been introduced two thousand year's ago into the population seem's likely. Somebody with some commanality with Jewish DNA migrated here that's the only explanation for it. David Stewart's rebuttal to Signature Book's with the info in it is online if you want to do a search for it.

The Native American's of the Book of Mormon are not Israelite's. They became a different race from what the Israelite's. So to expecting them to be tested, and be proven purely related to the Israelite's is to expect to much. The book only claim's before their DNA changed that their starting ancestor's were once part of Lehi's migration had his DNA. But that because of wickedness God changed their DNA. The ealier Nephite's and Lamanite's were or became two different races of men.

The Book of Mormon when read properly does not prevent other's from being here dating back to more ancient migration's.

The Book of Mormon has nothing to recover from. Most of the problem is expecting the DNA of Native American's to be Israelite DNA. That inspite of the fact Native American's and Israelite's are different races of men. For the Israelite DNA to match the Lamanite's of the Book of Mormon could only undergo a surface change of skin color. Why can't the Book of Mormon story of the Lamanite's be the story Israelite's whose DNA was changed by God.

To disprove the book you would have to do comprehensive studies on the DNA of dead people dating to the right time period. Prove that the starting, or proposed candidate people's of Lehi's migration's DNA could have never matched what Lehi's would have been.

Am i mis-reading the Book of Mormon text about it teaching the Lamanite's original DNA was changed? Where does the book only teach that the only change had to do with outside skin color?

Some believer's in the Book of Mormon had hoped for the DNA of Native American's and Israelite's would match. But this wasn't a true hope they got from the book if they read the book correctly. The only true hope would be something barely survived of the original group's DNA. That seem's to be the case with the marker. That true hope also would be that group that got here with Lehi once had the same DNA.

[CourtneyP]

I would like to understand how the Mormon Church can recover from this scientific proof? Can it really be only a matter of faith?

Quite simply, yes. It is a matter of faith. Without faith we all become as Doubting Thomas, who would not believe that Jesus had been resurrected until he saw the wounds in his hands and side. Christ said that he was blessed for knowing, but those who believed before the proof was shown to them of his resurrection are even more blessed.

There are things that we cannot yet understand on this Earth. When we die and the veil is lifted, we will come to understand those things. the proverbial light bulb will go off in our minds and it all will become clear.

I spent 17 years of my life searching for the proof of the truth. And what I've learned over that time is that religion isn't about proof, but about faith. It was hard for me to accept that for the longest time and I spent an additional 10 years trying to figure it all out. But it really is just a matter of faith. :)

[MorningStar]

I read a good article on this. Let me see if I can find it. It talked about a type of DNA called Mitochondrial DNA (I think) that is only passed through females. If you have a generation where there are no daughters, that would end the link right there and there have been many generations since then. This was used for me in a very personal way last year when I found out there is a missing person's DNA program where they match up samples of unidentified remains with living people who are looking for missing relatives. My grandmother has been missing for 38 years and we are pretty sure she passed away and was never identified. My brother could not have been tested. It had to be a woman. My Uncle's daughter could not have been tested either. The person tested had to be a woman who was the offspring of another woman who was the offspring of my grandmother. I am my grandmother's daughter's daughter and I had the privilege of providing a sample. Mitochondrial DNA is preserved better. Of course men can be tested with fresh samples with other types of DNA, but when it comes to old samples, Mitochondrial DNA testing is necessary. Another thing that article pointed out is do we know what ancient Israelite DNA looks like? I should just find the article. I'm not a scientist and I probably didn't remember it or explain it well. :)

The other point I would like to make - Look at the text of The Book of Mormon. Not everyone who is called a Lamanite is a descendant of Laman. It says "they called themselves Lamanites". I'll look up those verses. There's part that says the people who were on one side were called Nephites and the people on the other side were called Lamanites. Descendants of the people who were called Lamanites are not necessarily descendants of Laman. My husband is adopted. His family comes from England and he calls himself by his parents' last name. But if you were to test his DNA, you wouldn't find a link to England because he is not a blood relative. Sounds simplistic, but that's the way I view it. I believe there are people today who are related to people who joined the Lamanites. I was never concerned by the DNA criticisms. The Book of Mormon is true. It is the Word of God. :)

[nolank]

I have been involved in DNA studies for genealogy purposes and find that science very exact with better understanding daily.

Those experts that wrote the original report understood the implications of the bad news it meant for the church and you and me.

When I read the reactions to my questions, it seems you are all inventing your own science, without any real study in your behalf. Faith seems to be pushing you in this direction against reason.

I haven't lost my God, just my previous blind faith that the church Joseph Smith established was divinely restored. My faith may have been unwarranted blind faith.

[MorningStar]

Here is the article I mentioned. Click here I wish I could copy and paste parts of it.

4 Ne. 1: 36, 38, 43

36 And it came to pass that in this year there arose a people who were called the Nephites, and they were true believers in Christ; and among them there were those who were called by the Lamanites—Jacobites, and Josephites, and Zoramites;

• • •

38 And it came to pass that they who rejected the gospel were called Lamanites, and Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites; and they did not dwindle in unbelief, but they did wilfully rebel against the gospel of Christ; and they did teach their children that they should not believe, even as their fathers, from the beginning, did dwindle.

So they were called Nephites and Lamanites because of which side they were on, not because of their lineage. :) If you're here to convince people that The Book of Mormon isn't true, you're on the wrong board. And it is true.

[nolank]

I read the article.

I do not feel I am opposing the gospel nor do I feel I am weak in the gospel.

My concern is the authenticity of the Book of Mormon only. The church exists because we all believed it to be authentic, thus divinely directed and the primary reason I have been a member of my church for 68 years.

I wished to understand how others are dealing with this situation. I find it difficult to discuss this face to face with local members as it would probably ruin friendships. I also feel blind faith is wrong.

I will not be back to reply further.

[Daniel]

Was I just told I follow with blind faith? I mean I know the issues I've read about it. I feel I got the jist of it. I don't think it has really anything to do with the Book of Mormon or any implications that it was all made up. If it was such a devastating blow to the church then why is BYU still doing DNA research to bring the science forward. DNA is not the nail in the coffin for the church.

[NeuroTypical]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nolank)</div>

I was as shocked as most of the members of the Mormon church when no Israelite DNA was found in the indigious people tested throughout the Americas.

...

If the Book of Mormon was written by Joseph instead, the Mormon church doesn't have the authorized priesthood restored to the earth as I was taught. It's purpose for existance is threatened.

...

My concern is the authenticity of the Book of Mormon only. The church exists because we all believed it to be authentic, thus divinely directed and the primary reason I have been a member of my church for 68 years.

Nolank, I think you may have made quite a jump to a very unwarranted conclusion. The issue of DNA, and what it can and can't tell us, is much more complex than you give it credit for.

A few random thoughts:

* There is no such thing as "Israelite DNA", no matter how much Southerton, Murphy, and other church critics want there to be.

* It is not only possible, but plausible and expected, that Lehi and gang's genetic signature (whatever it was) would dissapear completely when mixed with larger populations.

* It's always a good idea to look at what you believe, and why you believe it. If you think the BoM expressly claims that all of North, Central, and South America was completely empty and devoid of all human life when Lehi arrived, you are not correct. If you think the BoM claims the Nephites and Lamanites were the ONLY peoples who ever lived in North, Central, and South America, you are not correct.

I will not be back to reply further.

Well, reply or not - I hope you continue to read and think. The DNA criticisms leveled against our church and our faith don't hold any water against the truthfulness of the BoM. They can only be fatal against our preconceived beliefs and unwarranted interpretations we've made.

Understand the difference between doctrine and cultural belief traditions.

LM

[HiJolly]

Well, reply or not - I hope you continue to read and think. The DNA criticisms leveled against our church and our faith don't hold any water against the truthfulness of the BoM. They can only be fatal against our preconceived beliefs and unwarranted interpretations we've made.

Understand the difference between doctrine and cultural belief traditions.

LM

Amen, brother!

HiJolly

[MorningStar]

I read the article.

I do not feel I am opposing the gospel nor do I feel I am weak in the gospel.

My concern is the authenticity of the Book of Mormon only. The church exists because we all believed it to be authentic, thus divinely directed and the primary reason I have been a member of my church for 68 years.

I wished to understand how others are dealing with this situation. I find it difficult to discuss this face to face with local members as it would probably ruin friendships. I also feel blind faith is wrong.

I will not be back to reply further.

It's a non-issue. That's how we're dealing with it. It's like someone told me it's been proven by scientists that oranges are not apples, but I never believed oranges are apples, so what is there to get all upset over? When I was a teenager, I noticed on my own that there were already people in The Book of Mormon and that Lehi's family didn't populate the Americas by themselves. I didn't think much of it but wondered why some people thought the land was empty until his family showed up. The Book of Mormon clearly shows otherwise.

[MorningStar]

Was I just told I follow with blind faith? I mean I know the issues I've read about it. I feel I got the jist of it. I don't think it has really anything to do with the Book of Mormon or any implications that it was all made up. If it was such a devastating blow to the church then why is BYU still doing DNA research to bring the science forward. DNA is not the nail in the coffin for the church.

I think he told all of us we follow with blind faith.

[Daniel]

I think he told all of us we follow with blind faith.

Does that mean I cannot critically or logically make decisions in my life? I dunno I don't think I like the whole implecations of being told I am following blindly. Especially when I was ready to discuss the issues. However it seems no matter what some people just want to use the wave of the hand to make things dissapear. Talk about being blinded.

[MorningStar]

Does that mean I cannot critically or logically make decisions in my life? I dunno I don't think I like the whole implecations of being told I am following blindly.

You are. Now go cover your ears and scream, "LALALALALALALALALA!!!!!I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!LALALALALALALALA!!!!!" like a good little blind follower. Oh, and you want to wear the blue shirt today. I hope that helped.

[Daniel]

You are. Now go cover your ears and scream, "LALALALALALALALALA!!!!!I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!LALALALALALALALA!!!!!" like a good little blind follower. Oh, and you want to wear the blue shirt today. I hope that helped.

We can wear blue shirts? You are kidding me right!

[MorningStar]

We can wear blue shirts? You are kidding me right!

Yes I am. I was just testing you.

[jwhitlock]

I have been involved in DNA studies for genealogy purposes and find that science very exact with better understanding daily.

Those experts that wrote the original report understood the implications of the bad news it meant for the church and you and me.

When I read the reactions to my questions, it seems you are all inventing your own science, without any real study in your behalf. Faith seems to be pushing you in this direction against reason.

I haven't lost my God, just my previous blind faith that the church Joseph Smith established was divinely restored. My faith may have been unwarranted blind faith.

Sounds like you have some preconceived notions about LDS Church members and "blind faith" that you aren't willing to let go. Even if we point out problems with the critics' claims about DNA such as:

- We don't know what Lehi's DNA looked like - nor are we likely to, as has been pointed out in this thread.

- The markers being tracked come either up the straight maternal or paternal lines - mother to daughter only, or father to son only. There is no way of knowing (and it is statistically very unlikely) that the current individuals being tested for DNA are straight line paternal or maternal descendants from Lehi's party.

- We don't know much at this point of how similar current DNA is to Israelite DNA of 600 BCE - let alone, again, knowing what Lehi's DNA consisted of.

- We know that the BofM peoples were not the only people who who came to the Americas. We also know that it was not only Israelites, but other peoples as well, who came to the Americas.

- And so on.

I find it somewhat arrogant for you to presume that someone who doesn't agree with you automatically has "invented" their own science and is only acting on "blind faith". Did it ever occur to you in your rather narrow world view that believing LDS just might have studied quite a bit about this subject? And found that the critics' case is, indeed, weak?

Are you trying to find a way to rationalize yourself out of the Church? Your weak, non-specific responses in this thread, along with your claims of authority (I am a scientist) seem to indicate that you've already made up your mind and are not particularly interested in the LDS response to the very, very weak critical DNA claims against the Church.

[MorningStar]

Sounds like you have some preconceived notions about LDS Church members and "blind faith" that you aren't willing to let go. Even if we point out problems with the critics' claims about DNA such as:

- We don't know what Lehi's DNA looked like - nor are we likely to, as has been pointed out in this thread.

- The markers being tracked come either up the straight maternal or paternal lines - mother to daughter only, or father to son only. There is no way of knowing (and it is statistically very unlikely) that the current individuals being tested for DNA are straight line paternal or maternal descendants from Lehi's party.

- We don't know much at this point of how similar current DNA is to Israelite DNA of 600 BCE - let alone, again, knowing what Lehi's DNA consisted of.

- We know that the BofM peoples were not the only people who who came to the Americas. We also know that it was not only Israelites, but other peoples as well, who came to the Americas.

- And so on.

I find it somewhat arrogant for you to presume that someone who doesn't agree with you automatically has "invented" their own science and is only acting on "blind faith". Did it ever occur to you in your rather narrow world view that believing LDS just might have studied quite a bit about this subject? And found that the critics' case is, indeed, weak?

Are you trying to find a way to rationalize yourself out of the Church? Your weak, non-specific responses in this thread, along with your claims of authority (I am a scientist) seem to indicate that you've already made up your mind and are not particularly interested in the LDS response to the very, very weak critical DNA claims against the Church.

Did you have to take your blindfold off to write that?

[jwhitlock]

Did you have to take your blindfold off to write that?

I can't. I am evidently permanently blinded by my faith and can entertain no other rational or intelligent thought beyond what I've been instructed by the great, evil empire emanating from Salt Lake, bent on a course of world domination using the deception started by "Jo" Smith.

Just between you and me, I've been cheating for several decades and reading up on things on my own, like this DNA kerfluffle - and gee whiz, it's actually driven me closer into the evil Mormon empire.

I'm lost, fer sure.

On a less facetious note, one of the videos I looked at that was critical of the Church on this DNA issue was a real work of art in and of itself. It basically consisted of a parade of talking heads, designated as "experts", who lined up to testify that the DNA research has really proven that the claims of the Book of Mormon are fraudulent. The only problem was, they didn't talk about the details of methodology of DNA research, or what specifically proved the BofM wrong, or any of the assumptions that I (and others) have raised. We were just presented with "experts" and since they were "experts", we ignorant lay people were supposed to just accept what they said, without any effort to understand it ourselves. Kind of like our original poster here, who as a "scientist" claims that DNA research has been devastating to the Church - without giving any particulars of why that is so.

I don't tend to have much patience with people who claim to be "experts" and that we just have to take them at face value without questioning. Once we are accused of having "blind faith", it quickly becomes evident that the questioner is not particularly sincere at all.

The interesting thing about this DNA issue is that it is very much of a surface issue only. Once you start digging down into the methodology and questioning the assumptions, it falls apart quite quickly.

[MorningStar]

I can't. I am evidently permanently blinded by my faith and can entertain no other rational or intelligent thought beyond what I've been instructed by the great, evil empire emanating from Salt Lake, bent on a course of world domination using the deception started by "Jo" Smith.

Just between you and me, I've been cheating for several decades and reading up on things on my own, like this DNA kerfluffle - and gee whiz, it's actually driven me closer into the evil Mormon empire.

I'm lost, fer sure.

On a less facetious note, one of the videos I looked at that was critical of the Church on this DNA issue was a real work of art in and of itself. It basically consisted of a parade of talking heads, designated as "experts", who lined up to testify that the DNA research has really proven that the claims of the Book of Mormon are fraudulent. The only problem was, they didn't talk about the details of methodology of DNA research, or what specifically proved the BofM wrong, or any of the assumptions that I (and others) have raised. We were just presented with "experts" and since they were "experts", we ignorant lay people were supposed to just accept what they said, without any effort to understand it ourselves. Kind of like our original poster here, who as a "scientist" claims that DNA research has been devastating to the Church - without giving any particulars of why that is so.

I don't tend to have much patience with people who claim to be "experts" and that we just have to take them at face value without questioning. Once we are accused of having "blind faith", it quickly becomes evident that the questioner is not particularly sincere at all.

The interesting thing about this DNA issue is that it is very much of a surface issue only. Once you start digging down into the methodology and questioning the assumptions, it falls apart quite quickly.

I think DNA technology is pretty nifty and I appreciate those who have blessed our lives with it. But people who use it to criticize The Book of Mormon don't understand it very well. You sound pretty intelligent for a blind fool.

[jwhitlock]

I think DNA technology is pretty nifty and I appreciate those who have blessed our lives with it. But people who use it to criticize The Book of Mormon don't understand it very well. You sound pretty intelligent for a blind fool.

You're right; DNA technology has incredible potential. And there's always someone who is willing to misapply science for ends of their own.

It just keeps getting better. At first, I was only blind. Now I'm a fool in addition to that. The joy just keeps multiplying!

[MorningStar]

You're right; DNA technology has incredible potential. And there's always someone who is willing to misapply science for ends of their own.

It just keeps getting better. At first, I was only blind. Now I'm a fool in addition to that. The joy just keeps multiplying!

Wow. I didn't know mindless robots could laugh.

[Kate]

Morningstar,

Can I just say, "I love you!!!!! " Sometimes your posts make me laugh! I was kind of in a dulldrum today...which for me is not frequent at all...just normally isn't in me, but alas, I needed to smile. I loved your responses. Same with the others, everyone had a great reply!

Have a great day!

~Kate