Native American DNA

The missionaries are defenseless – Part 3a – DNA and evolution

This is a continuation of my series about the practical problems missionaries face because of the Mesoamerican and two-Cumorahs theories. Instead of one long post, I’m breaking it up into smaller pieces to post each day this week.

My focus here is on the implications of this Gospel Topics essay for investigators and members of the Church who believe in a literal interpretation of the scriptures.First, I re-emphasize what I wrote in Part 1: The missionaries are not “defenseless” in the broad sense of the term. They have the Lord with them (D&C 39:12). They are protected, as we all know, and the Spirit guides and directs them, touches the hearts of the people they meet, etc. But they are defenseless when it comes to answering and even discussing some of the most common questions they get from investigators and former Mormons.

But they are defenseless when it comes to common questions about Book of Mormon geography and DNA posed by investigators, and instead of being defenseless, they could be using these questions to bring people to Christ.
_______________________

I stipulate that a spiritual testimony of the Book of Mormon is the most powerful and enduring witness of the truth we can have. But what are the steps of Moroni’s promise in Moroni 10:3-5?

3 Behold, I would exhort you

(i) that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them,

(ii) that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men,

(iii) from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and

(iv) ponder it in your hearts.

The first step, then, is that people have to “read these things” first.

The geography and DNA issues are obstacles for those considering whether or not to read the Book of Mormon in the first place. The Mesoamerican and two-Cumorahs theories not only make those barriers higher, but they add the additional barrier of claiming that Joseph and Oliver were ignorant speculators who misled the Church about Cumorah in New York.

How can people “remember how merciful the Lord hath been” unless they know what the Lord has done? That is, they have to remember what they’ve read the Bible, or what they’ve learned about God’s dealings in whatever faith tradition they have grown up in. Some commentators think Moroni is referring to what people read in the Book of Mormon, but the next step clarifies that.

The next step is the one I’m going to discuss in Part 3. “From the creation of Adam even down until” the modern day.

The Book of Mormon expressly omits God’s dealings prior to Lehi leaving Jerusalem, except for some snippets of his dealing with the Jaredites (Ether 1:3), so readers must relyon information outside the text of the Book of Mormon to remember God’s dealings. In most cases, this means they have to read and remember the Bible.

Here we have, in the verses that every missionary shares with every investigator, a reference to the creation of Adam as taught by the Bible.

Yet the DNA Gospel Topics essay rejects the plain teaching of the Bible (and our other latter-day scriptures) about the creation of Adam in favor of a metaphorical Adam who was either (i) created tens of thousands of years before the Biblical chronology or (ii) created tens of thousands of years after humans occupied most of the planet.

To be sure, I understand there are many different ways to interpret the scriptures regarding the creation of Adam and Eve. However, the Gospel Topics essay adopts the Darwinian evolutionary approach to Adam and Eve and rejects the literal interpretation accepted by many members of the Church and many millions of potential investigators.

In lieu of rejecting alternatives to Darwinian evolution as this essay does, I propose acknowledgement, if not acceptance, of multiple working hypotheses.

Otherwise, missionaries who refer investigators to the Gospel Topics essay on DNA find themselves trying to reconcile what Moroni said about the creation of Adam with the essay’s adoption of a version of the Adam story that fits within Darwinian evolution.

What’s a missionary to do?

What’s an investigator to do?
_______________________
end of Part 3a

Source: Book of Mormon Wars

Jonathan Neville | August 14, 2017 at 4:00 pm | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/p741A5-u0

New post on “Moroni’s America” – The North American Setting for the Book of Mormon

The missionaries are defenseless – Part 3b – DNA and evolution

by Jonathan Neville

Gospel Topics DNA essay – Part 3b – DNA and evolution

A lot of people have asked me about this Gospel Topics essay on DNA over the years so I’m sharing my notes in this series. It saves me a lot of time when I can answer questions by sending a link to a blog post. Feel free to share the link with others who have similar questions.

___________________

Another point of clarification. Sometimes I hear that lots of people are being baptized into the Church, and none of them raise the issue of Book of Mormon geography and/or DNA. To a significant degree, that is axiomatic; i.e., the people who raise these questions are unlikely to be baptized, especially when the missionaries (and members) are unable to effectively answer the questions.

In this sense, and at the risk of oversimplification, converts are self-selected by lack of awareness, interest, or concern about these issues.

And that’s great. I’m not saying or implying that everyone should be concerned about these issues.

But by embracing Darwinian evolution, the Gospel Topics essay unnecessarily excludes the millions of people who are concerned about these issues and who accept a literal interpretation of the Bible.

I’m proposing instead that, until we are ready to take a firm position on how and when the Earth was created, a better approach would be to acknowledge multiple working hypotheses, one of which includes a literal interpretation of the scriptures.

_____________________

Converts per 1,000 LDS members – graph by David Allan

As we’ve seen, the number of converts per 1,000 members (about 15/1,000 currently) is about 1/3 of what it was 35 years ago (47.5/1,000). We can think of these as the missing 30 converts per 1,000 members.

I’m told that the most productive area for missionary work, in terms of baptisms per thousand members, is Africa—specifically, West Africa. Even in Western Europe and the U.S., relatively few long-term citizens convert; a high percentage of converts are immigrants from developing countries who self-select as noted above.

And yes, that seems to be a fulfillment of prophecy, as others have noted (2 Nephi 12), and yes, we love these converts and welcome them with open arms. But what about the missing 30 converts per 1,000 members? (Actually, in some areas of West Africa, conversion rates are 45/1,000 or higher, which means the conversion rates in developed countries is well below 15/1,000. For those interested, there’s lots of information at http://cumorah.com/.)

There’s also no question that the DNA issue has had a tremendous impact on Church members. For many years, LDS people assumed that all the indigenous inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere were descendants of Lehi. This assumption is inexplicable because when Joseph Smith wrote the Wentworth letter, he replaced all of Orson Pratt’s hemispheric rhetoric with the simple and clear statement that the “remnant are the Indians that live in this country.” Yet, as with his teaching about the New York Cumorah in Letter VII, Joseph’s rejection of the hemispheric model was ignored.

The discovery that most of these indigenous people have primarily Asian DNA prompted the 2006 change to the Introduction to the Book of Mormon (from stating the Lamanites “are the principal ancestors of the American Indians” to stating that the Lamanites “are among the ancestors of the American Indians.” Nevertheless, the DNA issue remains a focus of anti-Mormon ministries and critics, which is why missionaries face the question so often.

I think the Asian/Lamanite issue can be easily addressed by the text of the Book of Mormon,* but for now I’m looking at the DNA essay’s approach.

My focus is on missionaries whose investigators are well educated and comfortable with the Internet, especially the millions of traditional Christians who have been trained to ask these questions. These educated, Bible-believing Christians should be well-prepared to accept Moroni’s challenge, but they have to overcome four unnecessary barriers to even take the first step ofreading the Book of Mormon. These barriers are explained on their ministry web sites, taught in their Sunday Schools, etc., and our own LDS scholars and educators are making the problems worse because of their Mesomania:

1. Mesoamerican geography,

2. Asian DNA

3. LDS scholars rejecting Joseph and Oliver, and

4. Rejecting a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Of course, the missionaries themselves need to understand the questions and responses wherever they go in the world, because sooner or later, these issues will come up everywhere. Already there are anti-Mormon ministries in Africa seeking to undermine the progress of the Church there. And missionaries who don’t have solid answers to these questions may find themselves questioning their faith.

_______________________

This series about the DNA Gospel Topics essay has to do with the essay’s explanation of DNA, but also the unstated, underlying context of the essay (in 3c).

I’m not a DNA scientist, but the essay is, or should be, intended for general audiences (although, as I pointed out in Part 2, the essay is not really accessible to most teenagers, missionaries, and investigators). I suspect it’s not all that accessible to most members of the Church either, but the main points are set out as I discussed in the last post.

Here, I’m going to discuss aspects of the science that I think matter most to many investigators, missionaries and members.

I begin by explaining that I respect scientists and I know a bit about the scientific process. I have an MS degree (although the focus was agriculture). In my career I’ve funded university research projects, and I know from those experiences that to a significant degree, the one who pays the bills gets the results wanted. Scientists universally deny this, of course, but when I was reviewing a grant proposal from a high-profile East Coast university, the scientist who was going to do the work (and receive the money) asked me what result I wanted so he could tailor the proposal accordingly. This is not an uncommon practice.

Mark Twain wrote “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.” This is true of many fields besides science, but we kid ourselves when we assume science is completely objective.

There are always assumptions, many of them unstated but assumed or implied.

__________________________

To reiterate, my focus here is on the implications of this Gospel Topics essay for investigators and members of the Church who believe in a literal interpretation of the scriptures.

The essay is targeted to scientists and those who don’t believe in a literal interpretation of the scriptures.

This is important for two reasons:

1) There are still some LDS people who accept a literal interpretation of the scriptures.

2) There are still many investigators who accept a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Is it ironic that the people most inclined to accept the gospel–people who already believe in the Bible–are the ones who are most likely to find this essay troubling?

The literal interpretation of the Bible holds that Adam and Eve were cast out of the garden of Eden around 4,000 BC. This is based on Biblical genealogy. Moroni alluded to this in Ether 1:3, and picked up the theme in Moroni 10:3. He seemed to think the Biblical account was sufficient, an assumption that appears justified by Moses 1-5 and Abraham 4-5, as well as the temple.**

Modern scriptures corroborate this idea.

2 Nephi 2 relates the story of Adam and Eve as literal people; i.e., the first humans.

Lehi taught, “22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

23 And they would have had no children.”

Obviously, no children would mean no evolution, at least from Adam forward. But evolution can’t explain how Adam and Eve–and all things which were created–would have remained in the state they were in after they were created, forever.

D&C 77:6 says, “Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?

A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.”

I’m not saying that to be a good LDS, you have to accept a literal interpretation of these and other passages, but the Gospel Topics essay doesn’t cite these verses. It doesn’t explain how they relate to the topic of Darwinian evolution, which is implicit in everything this essay teaches about DNA.

This is an important issue because this essay teaches, and ultimately is founded on, Darwinian evolution.

This is not a problem for many members of the Church who think modern science is correct, but for those who do interpret the scriptures literally, it is a big problem.

More importantly (maybe), it’s a problem for investigators who believe in the Bible.

Imagine you’re a devout Christian, but you believe in a pre-existence, or you see the need for modern prophets and revelation, or the Nicean Creed doesn’t make sense to you. In other words, you have some cognitive dissonance between what your church teaches and what you really believe.

The Mormon missionaries knock on your door. Despite your misgivings, you let them in. You discuss your beliefs. You discover an affinity for what they are teaching. It feels right to you, and is consistent with what you’ve always thought. They say they believe the Bible, as do you.

But you’ve heard some things about the Book of Mormon. You ask about the DNA issue. They refer you to this Gospel Topics essay. You study it carefully.

Then you realize that, to accept the LDS faith, or at least to accept the Book of Mormon in spite of what you’ve been told about the DNA problem, you’ll have to abandon your literal belief in the Bible.

In upcoming parts, I’ll explain why.

___________________

* The text tells us the Jaredites came to the new world and soon “began to spread upon the face of the land.” Assuming they crossed Asia and left from the shores of the Pacific (probably from today’s China), we would expect them to have predominantly Asian DNA. Ether’s account relates his own family line, but he was more than 33 generations removed from the brother of Jared. This is many millions of people spreading throughout the land. Coriantumr mentions just 2 million of his people killed in the wars leading up to Cumorah. Moroni wrote only of the people living “in this north country,” implying the rest of the Jaredites lived elsewhere. We would expect their Asian DNA to be diverse and well-represented throughout the continent, except in Northeastern U.S.

In the Northeastern U.S., we have a distinctive DNA haplogroup, again as expected from the text (i.e., assuming Cumorah is in New York). This is the X2 haplogroup, which I will discuss in parts 3c-3e.

How do we explain the statements of the prophets about Lamanites throughout the hemisphere, when their DNA is Asian?

The Mayan civilization collapsed around 800-900 A.D. Some of them migrated northward to what is now the Southeastern U.S. After several hundred years of intermarriage, they returned to Central America. We would expect the blood of Lehi to thereby intermingle with indigenous people throughout the Americas, albeit in low concentrations. So we can say, despite the Asian DNA markers, that these people have the blood of Lehi in them.

**It’s interesting to consider that Abraham 4 depicts the plan for the creation, not the actual creation. The implication from Darwinian evolution would mean that the Gods planned billions of years of evolution before the Earth was actually formed, then executed the plan with billions of years of evolution in mortality. This means that, if we accept the scriptures, there is no way to escape creationism; i.e., even if you accept Darwinian evolution, it was planned spiritually first.

Source: Book of Mormon Wars

Jonathan Neville | August 15, 2017 at 2:23 pm | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/p741A5-u1

New post on “Moroni’s America” – The North American Setting for the Book of Mormon

The missionaries are defenseless – Part 3c – DNA and evolution

by Jonathan Neville

Gospel Topics DNA essay – Part 3c – DNA and evolution

The DNA Gospel Topics essay is actually part of a long-running debate between Bible literalists and scholars who think the Bible is merely metaphorical and useless as a guide to understanding the Creation. It is also part of the debate over Book of Mormon geography because the proponents of the Mesoamerican and two-Cumorahs theories also reject Biblical literalism.

The principal author of the essay, Ugo Perego, contributed a brief essay to the Book of Mormon Archaeological Forum (BMAF), an organization whose Mission Statement is “to increase understanding of the Book of Mormon as an ancient Mesoamerican codex.”

BMAF is also the parent corporation that owns Book of Mormon Central (BOMC), which explains why BOMC adamantly and exclusively promotes the Mesoamerican and two-Cumorahs theories.

Here is the statement by BMAF, with my comments in red:

DNA Statement by Book of Mormon Archaeology Forum
Please, don’t fall for the DNA “evidence” being promoted by some members of the Church. We believe in the Book of Mormon with all our being, [as a Mesoamerican codex] but we also believe when we use science to prove something, then we should consult the experts and follow basic scientific methods. [This is a clever straw man fallacy. No one involved here is using DNA science to proveanything, but as we’ll see, the DNA evidence may corroborate the Book of Mormon narrative—just not in Mesoamerica, which is why BMAF wrote this statement.]
The Church (approved by the First Presidency on LDS.org) has just released a statement about using DNA to promote a Book of Mormon agenda:
“Much as critics and defenders of the Book of Mormon would like to use DNA studies to support their views, [notice, the actual essay refers to support, not proof] the evidence is simply inconclusive. Nothing is known about the DNA of Book of Mormon peoples. [As I mentioned before, I think it’s safe to say we know Lehi’s people were of Hebrew descent and came from Jerusalem, which narrows down the possibilities from the entire universe of DNA to a fairly small subset of DNA possibilities, which is not “nothing.” A better phrase might be “Little is known.”] Even if such information were known, processes such as population bottleneck, genetic drift, and post-Columbian immigration from West Eurasia make it unlikely that their DNA could be detected today. [The “unlikely” characterization is based on the undisclosed Mesoamerican assumption that Lehi’s people were all absorbed into a much larger Mayan culture. This is why it is so telling that the essay never even quotes from the scriptures, except in footnoted materials written to support the Mesoamerican theory.]https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng.”
Book of Mormon and DNA Studies
www.lds.org
From Ugo Perego, PhD
There is a video circulating widely on the internet about NEW INCREDIBLE DNA EVIDENCE in favor of the Book of Mormon. I want everyone to know that I do not support the views presented in this video (here is the link on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mADM3RYKl5Y&feature=youtu.be).
I personally believe the Book of Mormon to be sacred scripture, but not based on genetic evidence. [Which is also undoubtedly true ofeveryone who believes the Book of Mormon to be sacred scripture; i.e., no one has a testimony based on genetic evidence.]

It is my opinion that the presenter in this video (Rod Meldrum) [We’ll discuss what Brother Meldrum presents later; for now, I’m explaining the context of the Gospel Topics essay and some of the motivations for the way it is written and footnoted.]

is oversimplifying and stretching complex scientific data to fit its own view and purposes. [Simplifying is how any scientific information is presented to the public. I suggest readers consider this point once we delve into what Brother Meldrum was actually saying.]

This is dangerous because some people might actually believe in what he is saying and take for granted his conclusions. [This is equally true of every side of these debates, of course. Brother Perego implies that one side is right—his—and one side is wrong—Brother Meldrum’s. Brother Perego’s conclusions are based on Darwinian evolution; some people think taking evolution for granted as an explanation for the creation is a dangerous approach. This is really a debate about Biblical literalism, as we’ll see.]

I have listened to Rod Meldrum in the past and spoke with him on several occasions. I have also tried to explain to him the mistakes with his approach, but to no avail. [I can’t speak for Brother Meldrum, but I have also spoken with Brother Perego and I think I understand his objections. But he doesn’t understand, or doesn’t accept, and certainly doesn’t acknowledge, the counterarguments to his position.]

Here are in a short few points the main problems with the information presented in this video:

1. Lineage (haplogroup) X in the America [sic] is an unusual marker, but there is absolutely no evidence to link it to Book of Mormon people. [This absolute argument is in the same vein as the claim that we know nothing about the DNA of Lehi’s people. The evidence may not be substantial, may not be conclusive, may not be persuasive to Brother Perego and others, but there is some evidence of a link. I’ll discuss the merits in more detail later, but for now, consider that haplogroup X in the Americas is concentrated around the Great Lakes region and the northeastern U.S. and southeastern Canada. The only place in the scriptures in which the Lord designated specific people as Lamanites was in D&C 28, 30 and 32, when he sent Oliver Cowdery and three other brethren to preach to the Lamanites in New York, Ohio, and Missouri/Kansas (where they had been driven from the eastern states.) This geographical connection between haplogroup X and the revelations in the D&C is evidencein any sense of the term. The probity and utility of the evidence can be examined and debated, but it is not “absolutely no evidence.”]

2. As far as science has been able to determine to date, lineage X has been in the Americas probably long before Book of Mormon times (based on both carbon dating and the molecular clock). [The question of dating is really the crux of the matter. As the footnotes in the Gospel Topics essay explain, Brother Perego says lineage X has been in North America since around 7,000 B.C. This date is long after X separated from other, earlier lineages, and is in line with the standard evolutionary assumption that the first homo sapiens evolved around 200,000 years ago. The “molecular clock” referred to in the essay is an assumption about the mutation rate of biomolecules that measures evolutionary rate variation among organisms, again based on the 200,000- year-old evolutionary development of homo sapiens. “Carbon dating” is the technique used to determine the age of an object by measuring levels of radiocarbon (C-14). These two measurement techniques contradict the Biblical account of Adam and Eve, which is how this discussion of DNA implicates Bible literalism. In other words, people who interpret the Bible literally believe Adam and Eve were created around 4,000 B.C., based on the chronology given in Genesis. Mormons who interpret the Bible literally find corroboration in the Book of Mormon, D&C, and Pearl of Great Price. At least with respect to Adam and Eve, they are on common ground with Bible-believing Christians. Literalists think there are problems with the carbon dating and molecular clock that explain why those methods contradict the scriptures. For them, the Gospel Topics essay is problematic because it rejects Biblical literalism outright.]

3. It is not true that the first four lineages in the Americas prior to the discovery of haplogroup X are identical to lineages found in Asia. They are related with each other, but the ones in the Americas have their own unique characteristics. [This is an important clarification; these lineages changed as people migrated to the Americas from Asia, whether they were Jaredites or other Asian peoples.]

4. Likewise, lineage X in Northern North America has its own unique characteristics and it is not found anywhere else in the world. The one in the Americas is known as lineage X2a. [This is what we would expect of Lehi’s DNA as well; i.e., that it would be unique after some period of time in North America.]

5. There are other lineage X’s in the world (Europe, North Africa, Middle East and Asia) but none of them is the same as their American counterpart X2a. [Again, exactly what we expect of Lehi’s DNA. Lehi left Jerusalem shortly before the Babylonian siege and invasion. That invasion was a genetic bottleneck; only the poorest people were left in the land, with 10,000 taken to Babylon. It would not be surprising that the DNA of Lehi’s group was unique (X2a) because their relatives were killed.]

6. It is not true that lineage X was identified in the Americas in 2003. Data on a fifth lineage in the America has been widely published since 1991. [Good point of clarification.]

7. All the DNA that has been talked about in this video is referred to a [sic] genetic molecule known as mitochondrial DNA that is transmitted exclusively along the unbroken maternal line. This means that this approach cannot be easily used to determine the genetic ancestry of male lineages such as those described in this video and in the Book of Mormon. In other words, this is not the DNA we would expect to find today from Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, Lehi, Nephi, etc. [Good clarification, but mDNA is still used to trace migrations. This mDNA would be coming from the women in Lehi’s group and would still represent their Hebrew and Middle-Eastern origins.]

8. The LDS Church does not support DNA evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon. [Nowhere does the essay say this, of course. The essay claims there is no DNA evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon, not that the Church would not support such DNA evidence if it existed. And the main reason why the essay claims there is no DNA evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon is because of its assumption that Darwinian evolution explains how humans arrived on the earth, a product of evolution around 200,000 years ago.] Here is something more official found on the LDS.org website:https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies… [In classical citation cartel practice, Brother Perego cites his own essay, although, to be fair, he is a world expert on the topic, which I respect, so I don’t have a problem with this. But the Gospel Topics essay is unsigned, and people who read this BMAF version should be aware that Brother Perego wrote both essays. Actually, his BMAF essay is more accessible and understandable than the Gospel Topics version, but the gist is the same. The Gospel Topics essay is only partly a response to anti-Mormon critics; it is also an argument for why Church members should not believe Brother Meldrum and the link between the X2a haplogroup and the Book of Mormon.]

There is much more to it but this should be sufficient for now. It is too early to know for sure what the actual relationship of lineage X in the Americas with the Old World is and we need to be careful to jump at any conclusions at this time.” [This is a fair statement with which I agree, but again, it’s the assumptions about dating that are the underlying issue.]

From this analysis, I hope it’s obvious how the DNA issue here is really a debate over Biblical literalism vs. scientific repudiation of the scriptures.

_____________

Source: Book of Mormon Wars

Jonathan Neville | August 16, 2017 at 2:30 pm | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/p741A5-u7