More Nail-Pounding into the Mormon Church's "Lamanite DNA" Deceit

Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum.

Go to: Forum List•Message List•New Topic•Search•Log In

Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: February 03, 2014 10:09PM

--The Scientific Evidence Against the Mormon Church’s Claim of a Genetic Link Between Book of Mormon “Lamanites,” Present-day Native Americans and Semitic DNA

From “Bedrock of a Faith Is Jolted,“ by William Lobell, as published in the “Los Angeles Times”:

“For Mormons, the lack of discernible Hebrew blood in Native Americans is no minor collision between faith and science. It burrows into the historical foundations of the Book of Mormon, a 175-year-old transcription that the Church regards as literal and without error.

“For those outside the faith, the depth of the Church's dilemma can be explained this way: Imagine if DNA evidence revealed that the Pilgrims didn't sail from Europe to escape religious persecution but rather were part of a migration from Iceland — and that U.S. history books were wrong.

“Critics want the Church to admit its mistake and apologize to millions of Native Americans it converted. Church leaders have shown no inclination to do so. Indeed, they have dismissed as heresy any suggestion that Native American genetics undermine the Mormon creed.

“Yet at the same time, the Church has subtly promoted a fresh interpretation of the Book of Mormon intended to reconcile the DNA findings with the scriptures. This analysis is radically at odds with long-standing Mormon teachings.

“Some long-time observers believe that ultimately, the vast majority of Mormons will disregard the genetic research as an unworthy distraction from their faith.

"’This may look like the crushing blow to Mormonism from the outside,’ said Jan Shipps, a professor emeritus of religious studies at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, who has studied the Church for 40 years. ‘But religion ultimately does not rest on scientific evidence, but on mystical experiences. There are different ways of looking at truth.’ . . .

“According to the Book of Mormon, by 385 AD the dark-skinned Lamanites had wiped out other Hebrews. The Mormon Church called the victors ‘the principal ancestors of the American Indians.’ If the Lamanites returned to the Xhurch, their skin could once again become white.

“Over the years, Church prophets--believed by Mormons to receive revelations from God--and missionaries have used the supposed ancestral link between the ancient Hebrews and Native Americans and later Polynesians as a prime conversion tool in Central and South America and the South Pacific. . . .

"In the 1990s, DNA studies gave Mormon detractors further ammunition and new allies such as Simon G. Southerton, a molecular biologist and former bishop in the Church.

“Southerton, a senior research scientist with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in Australia, said genetic research allowed him to test his religious views against his scientific training.

“Genetic testing of Jews throughout the world had already shown that they shared common strains of DNA from the Middle East. Southerton examined studies of DNA lineages among Polynesians and indigenous peoples in North, Central and South America. One mapped maternal DNA lines from 7,300 Native Americans from 175 tribes.

“Southerton found no trace of Middle Eastern DNA in the genetic strands of today's American Indians and Pacific Islanders.

“In ‘Losing a Lost Tribe,’ published in 2004, he concluded that Mormonism — his faith for 30 years--needed to be reevaluated in the face of these facts, even though it would shake the foundations of the faith.

“The problem is that Mormon leaders cannot acknowledge any factual errors in the Book of Mormon because the prophet Joseph Smith proclaimed it the "most correct of any book on Earth,’ Southerton said in an interview.

"’They can't admit that it's not historical," Southerton said. "They would feel that there would be a loss of members and loss in confidence in Joseph Smith as a prophet."

“Officially, the Mormon Church says that nothing in the Mormon scriptures is incompatible with DNA evidence, and that the genetic studies are being twisted to attack the church.

"’We would hope that Church members would not simply buy into the latest DNA arguments being promulgated by those who oppose the church for some reason or other,’ said Michael Otterson, a Salt Lake City-based spokesman for the Mormon church.

"’The truth is, the Book of Mormon will never be proved or disproved by science,’ he said.

“Unofficially, Church leaders have tacitly approved an alternative interpretation of the Book of Mormon by church apologists--a term used for scholars who defend the faith.

“The apologists say Southerton and others are relying on a traditional reading of the Book of Mormon--that the Hebrews were the first and sole inhabitants of the New World and eventually populated the North and South American continents.

“The latest scholarship, they argue, shows that the text should be interpreted differently. They say the events described in the Book of Mormon were confined to a small section of Central America, and that the Hebrew tribe was small enough that its DNA was swallowed up by the existing Native Americans.

"’It would be a virtual certainly that their DNA would be swamped,’ said Daniel Peterson, a professor of Near Eastern studies at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, part of the worldwide Mormon educational system, and editor of a magazine devoted to Mormon apologetics. ‘And if that is the case, you couldn't tell who was a Lamanite descendant.’

“Southerton said the new interpretation was counter to both a plain reading of the text and the words of Mormon leaders.

"’The apologists feel that they are almost above the prophets,’ Southerton said. ‘They have completely reinvented the narrative in a way that would be completely alien to members of the church and most of the prophets.’

“The Church has not formally endorsed the apologists' views, but the official website of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — http://www.lds.org — cites their work and provides links to it.

"’They haven't made any explicit public declarations,’ said Armand L. Mauss, a Church member and retired Washington State University professor who recently published a book on Mormon race and lineage. ‘But operationally, that is the current Xhurch's position.’

“The DNA debate is largely limited to Church leaders, academics and a relatively small circle of Church critics. Most Mormons, taught that obedience is a key value, take the Book of Mormon as God's unerring word.

"’It's not that Mormons are not curious,’ Mauss said. ‘They just don't see the need to reconsider what has already been decided.’

“Critics contend that Mormon leaders are quick to stifle dissent. In 2002, Church officials began an excommunication proceeding against Thomas W. Murphy, an anthropology professor at Edmonds Community College in Washington state.

“He was deemed a heretic for saying the Mormon scriptures should be considered inspired fiction in light of the DNA evidence.

“After the controversy attracted national media coverage, with Murphy's supporters calling him the Galileo of Mormonism, Church leaders halted the trial.

“[Salt Lake City attorney and shaken-faith Mormon Jose A.] Loayza said the Church should embrace the controversy. ’They should openly address it,’ he said. ‘Often, the tack they adopt is to just ignore or refrain from any opinion. We should have the courage of our convictions. This [Lamanite issue] is potentially destructive to the faith.’

“Otterson, the Church spokesman, said Mormon leaders would remain neutral. ‘Whether Book of Mormon geography is extensive or limited or how much today's Native Americans reflect the genetic makeup of the Book of Mormon peoples has absolutely no bearing on its central message as a testament of Jesus Christ,’ he said. . . .

“Phil Ormsby, a Polynesian who lives in Brisbane, Australia, grew up believing he was a Hebrew.

"’I visualized myself among the fighting Lamanites and lived out the fantasies of the [Book of Mormon] as I read it,’ Ormsby said. "It gave me great mana [prestige] to know that these were my true ancestors."

"The DNA studies have altered his feelings completely.

"’Some days I am angry, and some days I feel pity,’ he said. ‘I feel pity for my people who have become obsessed with something that is nothing but a hoax.’”

(for Lobell's expanded examination upon which the above is based, see: "Losing My Religion: How I Lost My Faith Reporting on Religion in America and Found Unexpected Peace," by
William Lobdell [New York, New YorK: HarperCollins Publishers, 2009], available at: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0061626813/davesmormonin-20)
_____

--The Mormon Church--Repeatedly, Dogmatically and Officially--Has Genetically Linked Book of Mormon “Lamanites” to the Jews

For evidence for that stand upon sand, take a look at the devastating dissection of Mormonism's myth about the so-called Lamanites, at “Who are the Lamanites?" by RfM poster “Deconstrutor” at:

("Who are the Lamanites?: What is the Consistent LDS Church Doctrine Regarding the Ancestral Origins of American Indians?," at: http://www.i4m.com/think/lists/lamanite.htm)
_____

--Just Where Are Those Elusive Lamanites Today?

Joel B. Groat, in his "Lamanites No More: DNA and Lost Ties to Father Lehi, observes the following regarding the present location of Jewish DNA among all these allegedly- and readily-available Lamanites from the Mormon Church. In an article headlined, "Lamanites No More: DNA and Lost Ties to Father Lehi, he writes under the subhead, "Mormon Responses to the DNA Challenges":

"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 [under '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. . . . '

“For an examination of the corner into which the Mormon Church itself and modern genetic science have painted the absurd LDS position on the subject of Lamanite DNA, see ‘Lamanites No More: DNA and Lost Ties to Father Lehi,' . . ."

Groat then proceeds to rip these limp LDS Lamanite defenses apart, one by one, in his above-cited article: http://mit.irr.org/lamanites-no-more-dna-and-lost-ties-father-lehi
_____

--The “Limited Geography” Theory on “Lamanite DNA” is Merely Another Example of Limited Mormon Honesty

More debunking of the Mormon Church's deceptive thumping comes from another one of “Deconstructor’s” posts, entitled, “American Indians are Lamanites and Semites” (original emphasis):

“The 'Limited Geography' theory, and the claim that Lehites and Mulekites were genetically assimilated into much larger populations of already-long-extant-Asian-immigrants, has NO basis in Mormon scriptures, revelations, or doctrines.

“I am so tired of this fraudulent claim by FARMS/FAIR-LDS/Lindsey/all other Mormon apologists who are trying to weasel out of the DNA fiasco by misrepresenting the official church doctrine on Lamanite origins.

“Mormon scriptures, 'revelations' and doctrines--as continually taught by Joseph Smith himself and by subsequent Mormon prophets/apostles--all clearly indicate that the Lehite party (and secondarily, the Mulekite party) populated the entire western hemisphere; and it is long-standing Mormon prophetic pronouncement that AmerInds from all over this hemisphere are 'Lamanites' and 'Jews'/Semites.

“While the Book of Mormon goes into considerable detail in making explicit mention of encountering the the sole survivor of the Jaredites (Coriantumr), and of the Lehite party's descendants encountering the descendants of the parallel-immigrating-Mulekite party, yet the Book of Mormon offers a deafening silence when it comes to these FARMS-purported ‘much larger populations of Asian-immigrants into which the Lamanites were entirely assimilated . . . .’

“Strange that the Nephites/Lamanites would take the effort to mention so many trivial things in their record (such as the mysteriously disappeared 'cureloms' and 'cumoms'), and yet NEVER make ANY mention of ever having encountered any other 'Outsider' populations throughout the 1,000 year (Lehite) period.

“No, not strange--because Joseph Smith and subsequent prophets all clearly believed, and taught, that all AmerInds were Lamanite descendants.

“FARMS[-FAIR’s] explicit rejection of the ‘classical view’ (namely, hemispheric Jaredite/Lamanite settlement of an empty continent) was necessary in order for Mormon scholars [sic]to have any plausible loophole at all given the current DNA, linguistic, anthropometric, and archeological evidence; now FARMS. would hope to have us believe that the classical view was merely 'tradition' or 'Mormon folklore' and never doctrinal, or at least never officially so.

“That's utter BULLS**T and there is proof galore that they are lying out their asses, and are guilty of revisionist deception. Or deceptive revisionism. Whatever.

“In their frantic, desperate retreat to this last remaining (weak) position on DNA evidence, Mopologists have unwittingly committed the heresy of explicitly repudiating Joseph Smith (and other Church presidents) as a Prophet.

“But they cannot escape the DNA (or linguistic, or anthropometric) problems with this attempted Houdini maneuver: the paper trail is just too long--and too damning. . . .

”Here's a listing of [39] articles published in the 'Ensign'-- many of which were written/spoken by General Authorities (some were First Presidency Messages)--all of which were approved by Apostles and Prophets--that clearly refer to modern Indians of various specific tribes of North/Central/South Aamerica, as being LAMANITES. . . .

"And don't forget BYU's long-running 'LAMANITE GENERATION' Program . . .

"So, who are YOU going to trust with answers about the Church's official doctrine on Lamanites/AmerIndians: FARMS *or* Scriptures, General Authorities and the 'Ensign'???"

To drive home that question, here's an about-as-official-as-it-gets Mormon Church proclamation on "Lamanite" genetic origins, issued just a year after Joseph Smith's death, on the anniversary on the LDS Church's establishment:

"We . . . 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."

("Who are the Lamanites?: What is the Consistent LDS Church Doctrine Regarding the Ancestral Origins of American Indians?," at: http://www.i4m.com/think/lists/lamanite.htm)
_____

--Claims Made for an African Tribe Having Semtic Roots Compounds Problems Made in the Book of Mormon about Native American DNA Origins

From "Deconstructor's" article, "DNA Proves Native African Tribe is Really Jewish!":

“TBMs who refuse to believe that DNA can show Jewish ancestry should look at the case of the Lemba.

"The Lemba are a native tribe in Africa that claimed they were descendants from Jews, because they have a tradition that they were led out of Judea by a man named Buba.

“The problem was, several groups around the world practice Judaic rites or claim to be descended from Biblical tribes without having any ancestral Jewish connection.

“And there is no Buba in the records of Jewish history.

"Did Buba (like Lehi) lead his family out of Judea, or was it just a made-up story? Were the Lemba people descendants from Jews or not?

"It turns out that DNA evidence proved that the Lemba were indeed Jews.

"See:

http://www.bxscience.edu/publications/forensics/articles/dna/f-dna05.htm

“Mormons should recognize the parallels.

"DNA can and has been used to prove claims of Jewish ancestry. If the Angel Moroni and Joseph Smith were right about Native-Americans being Jewish descendants, then DNA would confirm it. But instead, the numerous DNA studies have all showed no connection between Jews and Native Americans.

"Lehi is a fake version of Buba.”

("DNA Proves Native African Tribe is Really Jewish!," by "Deconstructor," on "Recovery from Mormonism" discussion board, 18 February 2006, at: http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon440.htm)
_____

--The Mormon Church’s Genetic Fictions vs. the Scientific Genetic Facts

From “Book of Mormon, DNA and FAIR,” by RfM poster Bob McCue:

“The way to approach this issue - what does DNA evidence tell us about whether the Book of Mormon is an historic record? - is the same one we use to analyze all similar questions. We use evidence coupled with probability theory. We do not think in terms of 100% proof.

"The most credible Mormon and non-Mormon geneticists all say much the same thing--that the DNA case does not show with 100% certainty that no groups came from Jerusalem to the Americas, but does show that this is improbable, and that it is extremely improbable that any such migration contributed to a large scale civilization in the Americas.

“Hence, the Mormon apologist shift in emphasis toward the limited geography theory, which is much more difficult to attack than the common accepted theory of the BofM that underlay generations of belief that the Amerindians were in general descendants of people who crossed the ocean from Jerusalem. Religious people prefer hypothese that science can't mess with. Within Christianity there has been a trend toward such theories that is well over 100 years old. Fundamentalist leaning religions like Mormonism are late-comers to this game as a result of the social/information bubble they created for themselves. . . .

"There is at the moment within the LDS community a debate respecting how much doubt the current evidence respecting DNA casts on the belief Joseph Smith ("JS") and most other Mormons have held that the American Indians descend from the House of Israel.

“While this story is far too long to tell here, I will provide its outline and then use it to illustrate what in my view is one of the primary ways in which Mormon and other religious thinking runs off the rails.

“The Principle of Parsimony

“Most of the best decisions humans make consciously or unconsciously use the "principle of parsimony" (sometimes called ‘Occam's Razor’ after the Bishop of Occam who in the 14th century was one of its early and best know practitioners) as a criterion for deciding among competing theories or explanations of what ‘is,’

“The principle states that we should always choose the simplest explanation of a phenomenon--the one that requires the fewest leaps of logic. This is one of science's basic decision making rules.

"Another way to think of parsimony when it comes to decision making is that it makes use of probabilities. That is, it requires us to ask something like, ‘Given all we know about question "x", what is most likely to be the correct answer?’

“It recognizes that certainty is not possible in answering most if not all questions. This is how scientists, lawyers, judges and others in the business of decision making try to think.

"The Book of Mormon DNA Controversy

"It is fair to say that there is much DNA based evidence to suggest that JS and all those who have followed him were incorrect respecting the ancestry of Native Americans. That is, it appears that they did not descend from the Israelites.

“The Church's response to recent summaries of the scientific evidence in this regard, most notably provided by Tom Murphy in various published papers, has been to indicate that ‘all is well’ on its official website, followed by a reference to articles from the ‘Journal of Book of Mormon Studies’ respecting DNA and the Book of Mormon that were prepared to rebut Murphy. . . .

“But one has to read those articles carefully to understand what they mean with respect to this complex issue. They do not conclude that all is well with the Church's theory. If fact, the most reasonable scientific conclusion that can be drawn from those articles is that while the best evidence today indicates that the Church's theory is incorrect, it is still possible that at some future time more evidence will be found to support the Church's theory. That is, we are not certain at this point that the Church is wrong. And the Church makes no apparent attempt to estimate how likely it is that science will vindicate it's position.

“Precisely the same thing can be said about the earth's shape as the Church says about the DNA issue respecting the Book of Mormon. That is, the best evidence indicates today that the earth is round, but it is still possible that more persuasive evidence that it is flat will someday be produced. This is what Harvard scientist Stephen Jay Gould said in his introduction to James Watson's ‘DNA: The Secret of Life’:

“‘Such statements are useless from a decision making point of view. To make a decision that depends upon a state of fact, I need to understand the relevant probabilities.

"'For example, many of my clients are in the oil business. Before they drill a well, they spend a lot of money collecting information that allows them to estimate the probability that oil or gas will be found at a particular location, and at a particular depth underground. They then determine how much it will cost to drill the well, and decide based on their best estimate of the probability that oil or gas will be found whether it makes sense to spend that amount of money to drill that particular well. If they asked their geologist whether to drill a well and he all he was prepared to answer was, "Well, no one can prove that there isn't oil or gas there, so let's drill!," he would lose his job.’

“This is tantamount to what the Church says across a wide range of issues. You can't prove God does not exist, so we will assume He does. You can't prove JS lied about a lot of things, so we will assume he is believable. You can't prove that JS did not speak with angels and translate the Book of Mormon from golden plates, so we will assume that he did, while respecting each of these and many other similar issues there is plenty of evidence from which to make a probability based decision.

“But I digress.

"So, particularly with respect to scientific questions such as what kind of light DNA evidence shed's on the Book of Mormon's authenticity, I think it is fair to expect any scientist addressing the issue to do so in a probabilistic way. I suggest that we should be suspicious of any who do not do so. It is my experience that because of what the probabilities in this regard indicate, the Church and those who are faithful to it both consciously and unconsciously resist this kind of analysis when it comes to things like the Book of Mormon.

“The manner in which the Church's apologetic scientists framed their analysis respecting the DNA question is a textbook example of this.

"And as noted above, the kind of probabilistic analysis I have described can be applied to most of the issues that underpin the Church's faith claims.

“Historical analysis works on the same kind of probabilistic principles as does scientific analysis. And yet we find more or less continual resistance from the Church and those who defend it with respect to this kind of approach.

“What Do the Church's Scientists Say About DNA and the Book of Mormon?

“Since the question of the application of DNA theory to the native American population base is scientific in nature, one would expect the principle of parsimony to be on prominent display, and indeed one (but only one) of the articles linked to the Church's announcement that ‘all is well’ refers to it. In that regard, D. Jeffrey Meldrum and Trent D. Stephens ("Who Are the Children of Lehi?") note that there is no scientific evidence to support the traditional LDS theory that the Native Americans descended from the Israelites and there is much evidence that must be counted against it.

“They then indicate that the principle of parsimony indicates that the simplest theory should accepted until refuted (see pp. 43-44). Any scientist reading this would understand them to say that based on the evidence extant, the Church's theory should be rejected until compelling evidence can be found to support it.

“This means that if a decision had to be made today that depended on whether the Native Americans descended from the Israelites, science would advise us to assume that they did not.

“However, Meldrum and Stephens did not say this in the kind of clear fashion that would be required for a layperson to understand it. And then they go on set out a number of other theories, none of which are supported by any evidence, which could lead to the conclusion that the Native Americas did descend from the Israelites.

“So, given how oblique Meldrum and Stephens' statement against the Church's theory was, and how they indicated ways in which the Church's theory still could be true if evidence to support it was found, and how the Church's website referred to them as supporting the Church's position, most members who take the time to read what they have written will not understand it, and will likely conclude that these scientists are saying that science supports the Church's theory.

"Each of the other articles referred to on the Church's website as supporting its position respecting the origin of the Native Americans takes a similar approach, but does not refer to the principle of parsimony.

“All they show is that science has not proven with 100% certainty that JS's theory of American Native origins is incorrect, and hence they invite Mormons to continue to believe that JS was correct.

“For example, Michael F. Whiting (see ‘DNA and the Book of Mormon: A Phylogenetic Perspective’) sets up a straw man by saying that LDS critics claim certain proof of BofM falsity based on DNA alone. He then sets out to prove that of course does so.

“The difficulty of proving a negative is well known. In addition, contrary to the belief of most non-scientists, science does not purport to prove anything with 100% certainty. Even the basic principles of mathematics were shown by Kurt Godel to be uncertain. So of course it has not been proven that JS was wrong. Without an assessment of the probability based on the best evidence available to date as to who is right and who is wrong, this type of analysis tells us nothing.

“It should be embarrassing to a scientist such as Whiting (who I understand is reputable) to provide such analysis.

"Whiting's paper, which provides all kinds of interesting and useful analysis respecting relatively unimportant issues, reminds me of a tax opinion produced by the local office of one of the world's largest accounting firms. I had to review it in the context of the significant commercial transaction. It was 65 pages long and provided an admirable summary of the taxation principles (I am a tax attorney) in question, great analysis respecting many relevant points, and then in one sentence buried deep inside that dense document rendered itself useless by assuming away the essential point respecting which the opinion had been requested. That accounting firm lost a client.

“Whiting similarly did not address the most important issue respecting the DNA and the Book of Mormon.

"John M. Butler's article (‘A Few Thoughts from a Believing DNA Scientist’) also appears impressive. But again, he gives us no probabilistic analysis. All he has succeeded in doing is to show that the case against the Book of Mormon is not airtight. I note that Butler's specialty is DNA forensics and so it is not surprising that his analysis above is suited to the criminal justice process respecting which ‘proof beyond a reasonable doubt’ is the test most often in issue.

“To thwart proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as is required to prevent a criminal conviction, all that is required is a small probability that the case against you is flawed. Who can forget O.J. Simpson in that regard? . . . In ‘A History of Knowledge,’ Charles Van Doren summarizes the manner in which Newton created the scientific method, and indicates that the formulation Newton laid down still accounts for most of what scientists do. Newton had four rules, which when taken together constitute the scientific method.

“As Van Doren indicates at p. 210:

“’The fourth rule of reasoning is, in Newton's view, perhaps the most important of all. The entire rule should be quoted:

“'"In [science] we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as ‘very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which [the existing propositions] may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.’ [and] the argument of induction [that is, the principle he just stated] must not be evaded by hypotheses."

"'Newton loathed hypotheses. He saw in them all of the egregious and harmful errors of the past. By ‘hypotheses’ he meant the kind of explanations that the Scholastics had dreamed up to explain natural phenomena, the theory of the Elements, the assumption of Quintessence, and the tortured explanations of so-called violent motion, which even the Parisian theologians had not been able to accept. And he was more than willing to admit that he did not know.'

"As noted earlier, even some of the Church's apologetic scholars are prepared to admit that on the basis of the extant evidence, the principle of parsimony would cause science to side with those who induce from DNA evidence that at least the part of LDS doctrine and culture that indicates an Israelite origin for a large civilization in the Americas is not accurate.

“There is no doubt in my mind that the same thing can be said respecting a host of other elements of the Book of Mormon. That is, if we follow Newton's "argument of induction" or the scientific method, the Book of Mormon should be accepted as ahistorical.

“We then note that after paying lip service to the ‘principle of parsimony,’ which is encapsulated by the first of the four rules in Newton's scientific method, the Church's apologetic scientists (an oxymoron if there ever was one) proceed for formulate one highly improbable hypothesis after another, each designed to cause those who read them to doubt the propositions that emerge from an inductive analysis of the evidence at hand.

“In short, the Church's scientific scholars defend the Church's position in the DNA debate by setting up precisely the kind of hypotheses Newton ‘loathed,’ and using them in precisely the fashion he said that they should not used.

“The Use of Probabilities in Decision-Making

“The interplay between the Church and science's position respecting DNA illustrates something that is endlessly displayed as Mormons attempt to understand the "reality" of their faith.. . .

“While discussing religious issues such as the one related to DNA, I often hear the faithful discount the most probable theory by referring to the fact that there are many possible ways of explaining what happened, and so allow their faith to determine what is or is not. We do not ignore probabilities in our scientific work or in any other significant aspect of our lives. We should not do so respecting our religious beliefs either, despite the powerful psychological incentives that been built into us to do that.

"It is natural for people to assess probabilities about the things that are important to them, and so that almost everyone other than faithful Mormons wish to do this respecting the Book of Mormon is not surprising.

“When I see the kind of bafflegab I just have coming from the Church's apologists, I can think of only two possible alternatives: Either they are dancing away from the probabilities because they don't want to say them; or as a scientific matter it would require so many assumptions to get to the point where probabilities could be assessed that it would not be responsible to make such an assessment. Were that the case, I would expect them to have said this.”

("The Book of Mormon, DNA and FAIR," by Bob McCue, "Recovery from Mormonisim" discussion board, 16 February [2006], at:http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon440.htm)
_____

--On God and Genetics, the Mormon Church Dodges Giving Direct Answers on Direct “Lamanite DNA” Questions

The Mormon Church asserts:

“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."

It then quickly goes from asserting to skirting by citing non-official sources

"The following are not official Church positions or statements. They are simply information resources from authors with expertise in this area that readers may find helpful:

"'DNA and the Book of Mormon,' by David M. Stewart, MD; 'Detecting Lehi's Genetic Signature: Possible, Probable, or Not?,' by David A. McClellan; 'Nephi's Neighbors: Book of Mormon Peoples and Pre-Columbian Populations,' by Matthew Roper; 'Swimming in the Gene Pool: Israelite Kinship Relations, Genes, and Genealogy,' by Matthew Roper; 'Elusive Israel and the Numerical Dynamics of Population Mixing,' by Brian D. Stubbs; 'Before DNA,' by John L. Sorenson and Matthew Roper, 'Journal of Book of Mormon Studies,' Vol. 12, No. 1, 2003); download PDF document (715 KB) 'DNA and the Book of Mormon: A Phylogenetic Perspective' (Michael F. Whiting, 'Journal of Book of Mormon Studies,' Vol. 12, No. 1, 2003); download PDF document (431 KB)
'A Few Thoughts from a Believing Scientist,' by John M. Butler, 'Journal of Book of Mormon Studies,' Vol. 12, No. 1, 2003); download PDF document (169 KB) 'Who Are the Children of Lehi?,' by D. Jeffrey Meldrum and Trent D. Stephens, 'Journal of Book of Mormon Studies,' Vol. 12, No. 1, 2003); download PDF document (427 KB) 'Does DNA Evidence Refute the Book of Mormon?,' by Jeffrey D. Lindsay, Ph.D., 16 November 2003; download PDF document (478 KB)"

(http://www.lds.org/newsroom/mistakes/0,15331,3885-1-18078,00.html; link no longer available)

**********

In short, when it comes to questions surrounding Lamanite DNA, the Mormon Church is officially speechless, hapless, helpless, clueless, toothless, pointless, directionless, gutless, rudderless, anonymous and, well, completely isolated from the scientific mainstream.

Perhaps more to the point:

When it comes to "Lamanite DNA," the Mormon Church finds itself absolutely abandoned and on its own, with no place to turn (except inward) for support of its long-held, heretofore official, scripturally canonized and, now, totally repudiated position that Native Americans descended from Hebrews.

Where are the voices of the modern-day Mormon prophets on this one?

Poet T.S. Eliot speaks for them:

"We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men

"Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw.

"Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together

"Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass

"Or rats' feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar."

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/03/2014 10:23PM by steve benson.

Options: Reply•Quote

Go to Topic: Previous•Next

Go to: Forum List•Message List•New Topic•Search•Log In

Screen Name:
Subject:

Spam prevention:

Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.

 ********   ********   ********  ********  **     ** 
 **     **  **     **     **     **        **     ** 
 **     **  **     **     **     **        **     ** 
 **     **  **     **     **     ******    **     ** 
 **     **  **     **     **     **        **     ** 
 **     **  **     **     **     **        **     ** 
 ********   ********      **     **         *******

Enter code:

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> --The Scientific Evidence Against the Mormon
> Church’s Claim of a Genetic Link Between Book of
> Mormon “Lamanites,” Present-day Native
> Americans and Semitic DNA
> 
> From “Bedrock of a Faith Is Jolted,“ by
> William Lobell, as published in the “Los Angeles
> Times”:
> 
> “For Mormons, the lack of discernible Hebrew
> blood in Native Americans is no minor collision
> between faith and science. It burrows into the
> historical foundations of the Book of Mormon, a
> 175-year-old transcription that the Church regards
> as literal and without error.
> 
> “For those outside the faith, the depth of the
> Church's dilemma can be explained this way:
> Imagine if DNA evidence revealed that the Pilgrims
> didn't sail from Europe to escape religious
> persecution but rather were part of a migration
> from Iceland — and that U.S. history books were
> wrong.
> 
> “Critics want the Church to admit its mistake
> and apologize to millions of Native Americans it
> converted. Church leaders have shown no
> inclination to do so. Indeed, they have dismissed
> as heresy any suggestion that Native American
> genetics undermine the Mormon creed.
> 
> “Yet at the same time, the Church has subtly
> promoted a fresh interpretation of the Book of
> Mormon intended to reconcile the DNA findings with
> the scriptures. This analysis is radically at odds
> with long-standing Mormon teachings.
> 
> “Some long-time observers believe that
> ultimately, the vast majority of Mormons will
> disregard the genetic research as an unworthy
> distraction from their faith.
> 
> "’This may look like the crushing blow to
> Mormonism from the outside,’ said Jan Shipps, a
> professor emeritus of religious studies at Indiana
> University-Purdue University Indianapolis, who has
> studied the Church for 40 years. ‘But religion
> ultimately does not rest on scientific evidence,
> but on mystical experiences. There are different
> ways of looking at truth.’ . . .
> 
> “According to the Book of Mormon, by 385 AD the
> dark-skinned Lamanites had wiped out other
> Hebrews. The Mormon Church called the victors
> ‘the principal ancestors of the American
> Indians.’ If the Lamanites returned to the
> Xhurch, their skin could once again become white.
> 
> “Over the years, Church prophets--believed by
> Mormons to receive revelations from God--and
> missionaries have used the supposed ancestral link
> between the ancient Hebrews and Native Americans
> and later Polynesians as a prime conversion tool
> in Central and South America and the South
> Pacific. . . .
> 
> "In the 1990s, DNA studies gave Mormon detractors
> further ammunition and new allies such as Simon G.
> Southerton, a molecular biologist and former
> bishop in the Church.
> 
> “Southerton, a senior research scientist with
> the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
> Research Organization in Australia, said genetic
> research allowed him to test his religious views
> against his scientific training.
> 
> “Genetic testing of Jews throughout the world
> had already shown that they shared common strains
> of DNA from the Middle East. Southerton examined
> studies of DNA lineages among Polynesians and
> indigenous peoples in North, Central and South
> America. One mapped maternal DNA lines from 7,300
> Native Americans from 175 tribes.
> 
> “Southerton found no trace of Middle Eastern DNA
> in the genetic strands of today's American Indians
> and Pacific Islanders.
> 
> “In ‘Losing a Lost Tribe,’ published in
> 2004, he concluded that Mormonism — his faith
> for 30 years--needed to be reevaluated in the face
> of these facts, even though it would shake the
> foundations of the faith.
> 
> “The problem is that Mormon leaders cannot
> acknowledge any factual errors in the Book of
> Mormon because the prophet Joseph Smith proclaimed
> it the "most correct of any book on Earth,’
> Southerton said in an interview.
> 
> "’They can't admit that it's not historical,"
> Southerton said. "They would feel that there would
> be a loss of members and loss in confidence in
> Joseph Smith as a prophet."
> 
> “Officially, the Mormon Church says that nothing
> in the Mormon scriptures is incompatible with DNA
> evidence, and that the genetic studies are being
> twisted to attack the church.
> 
> "’We would hope that Church members would not
> simply buy into the latest DNA arguments being
> promulgated by those who oppose the church for
> some reason or other,’ said Michael Otterson, a
> Salt Lake City-based spokesman for the Mormon
> church.
> 
> "’The truth is, the Book of Mormon will never be
> proved or disproved by science,’ he said.
> 
> “Unofficially, Church leaders have tacitly
> approved an alternative interpretation of the Book
> of Mormon by church apologists--a term used for
> scholars who defend the faith.
> 
> “The apologists say Southerton and others are
> relying on a traditional reading of the Book of
> Mormon--that the Hebrews were the first and sole
> inhabitants of the New World and eventually
> populated the North and South American
> continents.
> 
> “The latest scholarship, they argue, shows that
> the text should be interpreted differently. They
> say the events described in the Book of Mormon
> were confined to a small section of Central
> America, and that the Hebrew tribe was small
> enough that its DNA was swallowed up by the
> existing Native Americans.
> 
> "’It would be a virtual certainly that their DNA
> would be swamped,’ said Daniel Peterson, a
> professor of Near Eastern studies at Brigham Young
> University in Provo, Utah, part of the worldwide
> Mormon educational system, and editor of a
> magazine devoted to Mormon apologetics. ‘And if
> that is the case, you couldn't tell who was a
> Lamanite descendant.’
> 
> “Southerton said the new interpretation was
> counter to both a plain reading of the text and
> the words of Mormon leaders.
> 
> "’The apologists feel that they are almost above
> the prophets,’ Southerton said. ‘They have
> completely reinvented the narrative in a way that
> would be completely alien to members of the church
> and most of the prophets.’
> 
> “The Church has not formally endorsed the
> apologists' views, but the official website of the
> Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints —
> http://www.lds.org — cites their work and
> provides links to it.
> 
> "’They haven't made any explicit public
> declarations,’ said Armand L. Mauss, a Church
> member and retired Washington State University
> professor who recently published a book on Mormon
> race and lineage. ‘But operationally, that is
> the current Xhurch's position.’
> 
> “The DNA debate is largely limited to Church
> leaders, academics and a relatively small circle
> of Church critics. Most Mormons, taught that
> obedience is a key value, take the Book of Mormon
> as God's unerring word.
> 
> "’It's not that Mormons are not curious,’
> Mauss said. ‘They just don't see the need to
> reconsider what has already been decided.’
> 
> “Critics contend that Mormon leaders are quick
> to stifle dissent. In 2002, Church officials began
> an excommunication proceeding against Thomas W.
> Murphy, an anthropology professor at Edmonds
> Community College in Washington state.
> 
> “He was deemed a heretic for saying the Mormon
> scriptures should be considered inspired fiction
> in light of the DNA evidence.
> 
> “After the controversy attracted national media
> coverage, with Murphy's supporters calling him the
> Galileo of Mormonism, Church leaders halted the
> trial.
> 
> “ Loayza said the Church should embrace the
> controversy. ’They should openly address it,’
> he said. ‘Often, the tack they adopt is to just
> ignore or refrain from any opinion. We should have
> the courage of our convictions. This  is
> potentially destructive to the faith.’
> 
> “Otterson, the Church spokesman, said Mormon
> leaders would remain neutral. ‘Whether Book of
> Mormon geography is extensive or limited or how
> much today's Native Americans reflect the genetic
> makeup of the Book of Mormon peoples has
> absolutely no bearing on its central message as a
> testament of Jesus Christ,’ he said. . . .
> 
> “Phil Ormsby, a Polynesian who lives in
> Brisbane, Australia, grew up believing he was a
> Hebrew.
> 
> "’I visualized myself among the fighting
> Lamanites and lived out the fantasies of the  as I
> read it,’ Ormsby said. "It gave me great mana 
> to know that these were my true ancestors."
> 
> "The DNA studies have altered his feelings
> completely.
> 
> "’Some days I am angry, and some days I feel
> pity,’ he said. ‘I feel pity for my people who
> have become obsessed with something that is
> nothing but a hoax.’”
> 
> (for Lobell's expanded examination upon which the
> above is based, see:  "Losing My Religion: How I
> Lost My Faith Reporting on Religion in America and
> Found Unexpected Peace," by 
> William Lobdell  , available at: 
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0061626813/
> davesmormonin-20)
> _____
> 
> 
> --The Mormon Church--Repeatedly, Dogmatically and
> Officially--Has Genetically Linked Book of Mormon
> “Lamanites” to the Jews
> 
> For evidence for that stand upon sand,  take a
> look at the devastating dissection of Mormonism's 
> myth about the so-called Lamanites, at  “Who are
> the Lamanites?"  by RfM poster “Deconstrutor”
> at:
> 
> ("Who are the Lamanites?: What is the Consistent
> LDS Church Doctrine Regarding the Ancestral
> Origins of American Indians?," at:
> http://www.i4m.com/think/lists/lamanite.htm)
> _____
> 
> 
> --Just Where Are Those Elusive Lamanites Today?
> 
> Joel B. Groat, in his "Lamanites No More: DNA and
> Lost Ties to Father Lehi, observes the following 
> regarding the present location of Jewish DNA among
> all these allegedly- and readily-available
> Lamanites from the Mormon Church. In an article
> headlined, "Lamanites No More: DNA and Lost Ties
> to Father Lehi, he writes under the subhead, 
> "Mormon Responses to the DNA Challenges":
> 
> "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  explicit rejection
> of the ‘classical view’ (namely, hemispheric
> Jaredite/Lamanite settlement of an empty
> continent) was necessary in order for Mormon
> scholars to have any plausible loophole at all
> given the current DNA, linguistic, anthropometric,
> and archeological evidence; now FARMS. would hope
> to have us believe that the classical view was
> merely 'tradition' or 'Mormon folklore' and never
> doctrinal, or at least never officially so.
> 
> “That's utter BULLS**T and there is proof galore
> that they are lying out their asses, and are
> guilty of revisionist deception. Or deceptive
> revisionism. Whatever.
> 
> “In their frantic, desperate retreat to this
> last remaining (weak) position on DNA evidence,
> Mopologists have unwittingly committed the heresy
> of explicitly repudiating Joseph Smith (and other
> Church presidents) as a Prophet.
> 
> “But they cannot escape the DNA (or linguistic,
> or anthropometric) problems with this attempted
> Houdini maneuver: the paper trail is just too
> long--and too damning. . . .
> 
> ”Here's a listing of [39] articles published in
> the 'Ensign'-- many of which were written/spoken
> by General Authorities (some were First Presidency
> Messages)--all of which were approved by Apostles
> and Prophets--that clearly refer to modern Indians
> of various specific tribes of North/Central/South
> Aamerica, as being LAMANITES. . . .
> 
> "And don't forget BYU's long-running 'LAMANITE
> GENERATION' Program . . .
> 
> "So, who are YOU going to trust with answers about
> the Church's official doctrine on
> Lamanites/AmerIndians: FARMS *or* Scriptures,
> General Authorities and the 'Ensign'???"
> 
> To drive home that question, here's an
> about-as-official-as-it-gets Mormon Church
> proclamation on "Lamanite" genetic origins, issued
> just a year after Joseph Smith's death, on the
> anniversary on the LDS Church's establishment:
> 
> "We . . . 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."
> 
> ("Who are the Lamanites?: What is the Consistent
> LDS Church Doctrine Regarding the Ancestral
> Origins of American Indians?," at:
> http://www.i4m.com/think/lists/lamanite.htm)
> _____
> 
> 
> --Claims Made for an African Tribe Having Semtic
> Roots Compounds Problems Made in the Book of
> Mormon about Native American DNA Origins
> 
> From "Deconstructor's" article, "DNA Proves Native
> African Tribe is Really Jewish!":
> 
> “TBMs who refuse to believe that DNA can show
> Jewish ancestry should look at the case of the
> Lemba.
> 
> "The Lemba are a native tribe in Africa that
> claimed they were descendants from Jews, because
> they have a tradition that they were led out of
> Judea by a man named Buba.
> 
> “The problem was, several groups around the
> world practice Judaic rites or claim to be
> descended from Biblical tribes without having any
> ancestral Jewish connection.
> 
> “And there is no Buba in the records of Jewish
> history.
> 
> "Did Buba (like Lehi) lead his family out of
> Judea, or was it just a made-up story? Were the
> Lemba people descendants from Jews or not?
> 
> "It turns out that DNA evidence proved that the
> Lemba were indeed Jews.
> 
> "See:
> 
> http://www.bxscience.edu/publications/forensics/ar
> ticles/dna/f-dna05.htm
> 
> “Mormons should recognize the parallels.
> 
> "DNA can and has been used to prove claims of
> Jewish ancestry. If the Angel Moroni and Joseph
> Smith were right about Native-Americans being
> Jewish descendants, then DNA would confirm it. But
> instead, the numerous DNA studies have all showed
> no connection between Jews and Native Americans.
> 
> "Lehi is a fake version of Buba.”
> 
> ("DNA Proves Native African Tribe is Really
> Jewish!," by "Deconstructor," on "Recovery from
> Mormonism" discussion board, 18 February 2006, at:
> http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon440.htm) 
> _____
> 
> 
> 
> --The Mormon Church’s Genetic Fictions vs. the
> Scientific Genetic Facts
> 
> From “Book of Mormon, DNA and FAIR,” by RfM
> poster Bob McCue:
> 
> “The way to approach this issue - what does DNA
> evidence tell us about whether the Book of Mormon
> is an historic record? - is the same one we use to
> analyze all similar questions. We use evidence
> coupled with probability theory. We do not think
> in terms of 100% proof.
> 
> "The most credible Mormon and non-Mormon
> geneticists all say much the same thing--that the
> DNA case does not show with 100% certainty that no
> groups came from Jerusalem to the Americas, but
> does show that this is improbable, and that it is
> extremely improbable that any such migration
> contributed to a large scale civilization in the
> Americas.
> 
> “Hence, the Mormon apologist shift in emphasis
> toward the limited geography theory, which is much
> more difficult to attack than the common accepted
> theory of the BofM that underlay generations of
> belief that the Amerindians were in general
> descendants of people who crossed the ocean from
> Jerusalem. Religious people prefer hypothese that
> science can't mess with. Within Christianity there
> has been a trend toward such theories that is well
> over 100 years old. Fundamentalist leaning
> religions like Mormonism are late-comers to this
> game as a result of the social/information bubble
> they created for themselves. . . .
> 
> "There is at the moment within the LDS community a
> debate respecting how much doubt the current
> evidence respecting DNA casts on the belief Joseph
> Smith ("JS") and most other Mormons have held that
> the American Indians descend from the House of
> Israel.
> 
> “While this story is far too long to tell here,
> I will provide its outline and then use it to
> illustrate what in my view is one of the primary
> ways in which Mormon and other religious thinking
> runs off the rails.
> 
> “The Principle of Parsimony
> 
> “Most of the best decisions humans make
> consciously or unconsciously use the "principle of
> parsimony" (sometimes called ‘Occam's Razor’
> after the Bishop of Occam who in the 14th century
> was one of its early and best know practitioners)
> as a criterion for deciding among competing
> theories or explanations of what ‘is,’
> 
> “The principle states that we should always
> choose the simplest explanation of a
> phenomenon--the one that requires the fewest leaps
> of logic. This is one of science's basic decision
> making rules.
> 
> "Another way to think of parsimony when it comes
> to decision making is that it makes use of
> probabilities. That is, it requires us to ask
> something like, ‘Given all we know about
> question "x", what is most likely to be the
> correct answer?’
> 
> “It recognizes that certainty is not possible in
> answering most if not all questions. This is how
> scientists, lawyers, judges and others in the
> business of decision making try to think.
> 
> "The Book of Mormon DNA Controversy
> 
> "It is fair to say that there is much DNA based
> evidence to suggest that JS and all those who have
> followed him were incorrect respecting the
> ancestry of Native Americans. That is, it appears
> that they did not descend from the Israelites.
> 
> “The Church's response to recent summaries of
> the scientific evidence in this regard, most
> notably provided by Tom Murphy in various
> published papers, has been to indicate that ‘all
> is well’ on its official website, followed by a
> reference to articles from the ‘Journal of Book
> of Mormon Studies’ respecting DNA and the Book
> of Mormon that were prepared to rebut Murphy. . .
> .
> 
> “But one has to read those articles carefully to
> understand what they mean with respect to this
> complex issue. They do not conclude that all is
> well with the Church's theory. If fact, the most
> reasonable scientific conclusion that can be drawn
> from those articles is that while the best
> evidence today indicates that the Church's theory
> is incorrect, it is still possible that at some
> future time more evidence will be found to support
> the Church's theory. That is, we are not certain
> at this point that the Church is wrong. And the
> Church makes no apparent attempt to estimate how
> likely it is that science will vindicate it's
> position.
> 
> “Precisely the same thing can be said about the
> earth's shape as the Church says about the DNA
> issue respecting the Book of Mormon. That is, the
> best evidence indicates today that the earth is
> round, but it is still possible that more
> persuasive evidence that it is flat will someday
> be produced. This is what Harvard scientist
> Stephen Jay Gould said in his introduction to
> James Watson's ‘DNA: The Secret of Life’:
> 
> “‘Such statements are useless from a decision
> making point of view. To make a decision that
> depends upon a state of fact, I need to understand
> the relevant probabilities.
> 
> "'For example, many of my clients are in the oil
> business. Before they drill a well, they spend a
> lot of money collecting information that allows
> them to estimate the probability that oil or gas
> will be found at a particular location, and at a
> particular depth underground. They then determine
> how much it will cost to drill the well, and
> decide based on their best estimate of the
> probability that oil or gas will be found whether
> it makes sense to spend that amount of money to
> drill that particular well. If they asked their
> geologist whether to drill a well and he all he
> was prepared to answer was, "Well, no one can
> prove that there isn't oil or gas there, so let's
> drill!," he would lose his job.’
> 
> “This is tantamount to what the Church says
> across a wide range of issues. You can't prove God
> does not exist, so we will assume He does. You
> can't prove JS lied about a lot of things, so we
> will assume he is believable. You can't prove that
> JS did not speak with angels and translate the
> Book of Mormon from golden plates, so we will
> assume that he did, while respecting each of these
> and many other similar issues there is plenty of
> evidence from which to make a probability based
> decision.
> 
> “But I digress.
> 
> "So, particularly with respect to scientific
> questions such as what kind of light DNA evidence
> shed's on the Book of Mormon's authenticity, I
> think it is fair to expect any scientist
> addressing the issue to do so in a probabilistic
> way. I suggest that we should be suspicious of any
> who do not do so. It is my experience that because
> of what the probabilities in this regard indicate,
> the Church and those who are faithful to it both
> consciously and unconsciously resist this kind of
> analysis when it comes to things like the Book of
> Mormon.
> 
> “The manner in which the Church's apologetic
> scientists framed their analysis respecting the
> DNA question is a textbook example of this.
> 
> "And as noted above, the kind of probabilistic
> analysis I have described can be applied to most
> of the issues that underpin the Church's faith
> claims.
> 
> “Historical analysis works on the same kind of
> probabilistic principles as does scientific
> analysis. And yet we find more or less continual
> resistance from the Church and those who defend it
> with respect to this kind of approach.
> 
> “What Do the Church's Scientists Say About DNA
> and the Book of Mormon?
> 
> “Since the question of the application of DNA
> theory to the native American population base is
> scientific in nature, one would expect the
> principle of parsimony to be on prominent display,
> and indeed one (but only one) of the articles
> linked to the Church's announcement that ‘all is
> well’ refers to it. In that regard, D. Jeffrey
> Meldrum and Trent D. Stephens ("Who Are the
> Children of Lehi?") note that there is no
> scientific evidence to support the traditional LDS
> theory that the Native Americans descended from
> the Israelites and there is much evidence that
> must be counted against it.
> 
> “They then indicate that the principle of
> parsimony indicates that the simplest theory
> should accepted until refuted (see pp. 43-44). Any
> scientist reading this would understand them to
> say that based on the evidence extant, the
> Church's theory should be rejected until
> compelling evidence can be found to support it.
> 
> “This means that if a decision had to be made
> today that depended on whether the Native
> Americans descended from the Israelites, science
> would advise us to assume that they did not.
> 
> “However, Meldrum and Stephens did not say this
> in the kind of clear fashion that would be
> required for a layperson to understand it. And
> then they go on set out a number of other
> theories, none of which are supported by any
> evidence, which could lead to the conclusion that
> the Native Americas did descend from the
> Israelites.
> 
> “So, given how oblique Meldrum and Stephens'
> statement against the Church's theory was, and how
> they indicated ways in which the Church's theory
> still could be true if evidence to support it was
> found, and how the Church's website referred to
> them as supporting the Church's position, most
> members who take the time to read what they have
> written will not understand it, and will likely
> conclude that these scientists are saying that
> science supports the Church's theory.
> 
> "Each of the other articles referred to on the
> Church's website as supporting its position
> respecting the origin of the Native Americans
> takes a similar approach, but does not refer to
> the principle of parsimony.
> 
> “All they show is that science has not proven
> with 100% certainty that JS's theory of American
> Native origins is incorrect, and hence they invite
> Mormons to continue to believe that JS was
> correct.
> 
> “For example, Michael F. Whiting (see ‘DNA and
> the Book of Mormon: A Phylogenetic Perspective’)
> sets up a straw man by saying that LDS critics
> claim certain proof of BofM falsity based on DNA
> alone. He then sets out to prove that of course
> does so.
> 
> “The difficulty of proving a negative is well
> known. In addition, contrary to the belief of most
> non-scientists, science does not purport to prove
> anything with 100% certainty. Even the basic
> principles of mathematics were shown by Kurt Godel
> to be uncertain. So of course it has not been
> proven that JS was wrong. Without an assessment of
> the probability based on the best evidence
> available to date as to who is right and who is
> wrong, this type of analysis tells us nothing.
> 
> “It should be embarrassing to a scientist such
> as Whiting (who I understand is reputable) to
> provide such analysis.
> 
> "Whiting's paper, which provides all kinds of
> interesting and useful analysis respecting
> relatively unimportant issues, reminds me of a tax
> opinion produced by the local office of one of the
> world's largest accounting firms. I had to review
> it in the context of the significant commercial
> transaction. It was 65 pages long and provided an
> admirable summary of the taxation principles (I am
> a tax attorney) in question, great analysis
> respecting many relevant points, and then in one
> sentence buried deep inside that dense document
> rendered itself useless by assuming away the
> essential point respecting which the opinion had
> been requested. That accounting firm lost a
> client.
> 
> “Whiting similarly did not address the most
> important issue respecting the DNA and the Book of
> Mormon.
> 
> "John M. Butler's article (‘A Few Thoughts from
> a Believing DNA Scientist’) also appears
> impressive. But again, he gives us no
> probabilistic analysis. All he has succeeded in
> doing is to show that the case against the Book of
> Mormon is not airtight. I note that Butler's
> specialty is DNA forensics and so it is not
> surprising that his analysis above is suited to
> the criminal justice process respecting which
> ‘proof beyond a reasonable doubt’ is the test
> most often in issue.
> 
> “To thwart proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as
> is required to prevent a criminal conviction, all
> that is required is a small probability that the
> case against you is flawed. Who can forget O.J.
> Simpson in that regard? . . . In ‘A History of
> Knowledge,’ Charles Van Doren summarizes the
> manner in which Newton created the scientific
> method, and indicates that the formulation Newton
> laid down still accounts for most of what
> scientists do. Newton had four rules, which when
> taken together constitute the scientific method.
> 
> “As Van Doren indicates at p. 210:
> 
> “’The fourth rule of reasoning is, in Newton's
> view, perhaps the most important of all. The
> entire rule should be quoted:
> 
> “'"In  we are to look upon propositions inferred
> by general induction from phenomena as ‘very
> nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary
> hypotheses that may be imagined, till such time as
> other phenomena occur, by which  may either be
> made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.’ 
> the argument of induction  must not be evaded by
> hypotheses."
> 
> "'Newton loathed hypotheses. He saw in them all of
> the egregious and harmful errors of the past. By
> ‘hypotheses’ he meant the kind of explanations
> that the Scholastics had dreamed up to explain
> natural phenomena, the theory of the Elements, the
> assumption of Quintessence, and the tortured
> explanations of so-called violent motion, which
> even the Parisian theologians had not been able to
> accept. And he was more than willing to admit that
> he did not know.'
> 
> "As noted earlier, even some of the Church's
> apologetic scholars are prepared to admit that on
> the basis of the extant evidence, the principle of
> parsimony would cause science to side with those
> who induce from DNA evidence that at least the
> part of LDS doctrine and culture that indicates an
> Israelite origin for a large civilization in the
> Americas is not accurate.
> 
> “There is no doubt in my mind that the same
> thing can be said respecting a host of other
> elements of the Book of Mormon. That is, if we
> follow Newton's "argument of induction" or the
> scientific method, the Book of Mormon should be
> accepted as ahistorical.
> 
> “We then note that after paying lip service to
> the ‘principle of parsimony,’ which is
> encapsulated by the first of the four rules in
> Newton's scientific method, the Church's
> apologetic scientists (an oxymoron if there ever
> was one) proceed for formulate one highly
> improbable hypothesis after another, each designed
> to cause those who read them to doubt the
> propositions that emerge from an inductive
> analysis of the evidence at hand.
> 
> “In short, the Church's scientific scholars
> defend the Church's position in the DNA debate by
> setting up precisely the kind of hypotheses Newton
> ‘loathed,’ and using them in precisely the
> fashion he said that they should not used.
> 
> “The Use of Probabilities in Decision-Making
> 
> “The interplay between the Church and science's
> position respecting DNA illustrates something that
> is endlessly displayed as Mormons attempt to
> understand the "reality" of their faith.. . .
> 
> “While discussing religious issues such as the
> one related to DNA, I often hear the faithful
> discount the most probable theory by referring to
> the fact that there are many possible ways of
> explaining what happened, and so allow their faith
> to determine what is or is not. We do not ignore
> probabilities in our scientific work or in any
> other significant aspect of our lives. We should
> not do so respecting our religious beliefs either,
> despite the powerful psychological incentives that
> been built into us to do that.
> 
> "It is natural for people to assess probabilities
> about the things that are important to them, and
> so that almost everyone other than faithful
> Mormons wish to do this respecting the Book of
> Mormon is not surprising.
> 
> “When I see the kind of bafflegab I just have
> coming from the Church's apologists, I can think
> of only two possible alternatives: Either they are
> dancing away from the probabilities because they
> don't want to say them; or as a scientific matter
> it would require so many assumptions to get to the
> point where probabilities could be assessed that
> it would not be responsible to make such an
> assessment. Were that the case, I would expect
> them to have said this.”
> 
> ("The Book of Mormon, DNA and FAIR," by Bob McCue,
> "Recovery from Mormonisim" discussion board, 16
> February [2006],
> at:http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon440.htm)
> _____
> 
> 
> --On God and Genetics, the Mormon Church Dodges
> Giving Direct Answers on Direct “Lamanite DNA”
> Questions
> 
> The Mormon Church asserts:
> 
> “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."
> 
> It then quickly goes from asserting to skirting by
> citing non-official sources
> 
> "The following are not official Church positions
> or statements. They are simply information
> resources from authors with expertise in this area
> that readers may find helpful:
> 
> "'DNA and the Book of Mormon,' by David M.
> Stewart, MD; 'Detecting Lehi's Genetic Signature:
> Possible, Probable, or Not?,' by David A.
> McClellan; 'Nephi's Neighbors: Book of Mormon
> Peoples and Pre-Columbian Populations,' by Matthew
> Roper; 'Swimming in the Gene Pool: Israelite
> Kinship Relations, Genes, and Genealogy,' by
> Matthew Roper; 'Elusive Israel and the Numerical
> Dynamics of Population Mixing,' by Brian D.
> Stubbs; 'Before DNA,' by John L. Sorenson and
> Matthew Roper, 'Journal of Book of Mormon
> Studies,' Vol. 12, No. 1, 2003); download PDF
> document (715 KB) 'DNA and the Book of Mormon: A
> Phylogenetic Perspective' (Michael F. Whiting,
> 'Journal of Book of Mormon Studies,' Vol. 12, No.
> 1, 2003); download PDF document (431 KB)
> 'A Few Thoughts from a Believing Scientist,' by
> John M. Butler, 'Journal of Book of Mormon
> Studies,' Vol. 12, No. 1, 2003); download PDF
> document (169 KB) 'Who Are the Children of Lehi?,'
> by D. Jeffrey Meldrum and Trent D. Stephens,
> 'Journal of Book of Mormon Studies,' Vol. 12, No.
> 1, 2003); download PDF document (427 KB) 'Does DNA
> Evidence Refute the Book of Mormon?,' by Jeffrey
> D. Lindsay, Ph.D., 16 November 2003; download PDF
> document (478 KB)"
> 
> (http://www.lds.org/newsroom/mistakes/0,15331,3885
> -1-18078,00.html; link no longer available)
> 
> **********
> 
> 
> In short, when it comes to  questions surrounding
> Lamanite DNA, the Mormon Church is officially
> speechless, hapless, helpless, clueless,
> toothless, pointless, directionless, gutless,
> rudderless, anonymous and, well, completely
> isolated from the scientific mainstream.
> 
> Perhaps more to the point:
> 
> When it comes to "Lamanite DNA," the Mormon Church
> finds itself absolutely abandoned and on its own,
> with no place to turn (except inward) for support
> of its long-held, heretofore official,
> scripturally canonized and, now, totally
> repudiated position that Native Americans
> descended from Hebrews.
> 
> Where are the voices of the modern-day Mormon
> prophets on this one?
> 
> Poet T.S. Eliot speaks for them:
> 
> "We are the hollow men
> We are the stuffed men
> 
> "Leaning together
> Headpiece filled with straw.
> 
> "Alas!
> Our dried voices, when
> We whisper together
> 
> "Are quiet and meaningless
> As wind in dry grass
> 
> "Or rats' feet over broken glass
> In our dry cellar."