How do you get past the issue of the Native American DNA dilemma?

[blitzinstripes]

Dna is only a small portion of the historical evidence. Quite a bit exists in the form of artifacts and such that were unknown in JS's time period, oral and written records of native peoples which bear striking similarities to BOM content (Chief Midegah is an interesting personality in that regard, he's LDS but plenty of non LDS natives share the same accounts, and also quite a bit of internal linguistic and geographic evidence. Some examples would be chiasmus language structure in the BoM which is an ancient Hebrew writing style, and accurate historical, geographical descriptions of the Arabian peninsula as Lehi journeyed which JS would have known absolutely nothing about. Also Nephi's account of the death and burial of Ishmael at Nahom. Nahom was an ancient city with a large burial ground. JS would not have known that. A few locations have also been identified that would meet the description of the ancient Bountiful where Nephi built his ship, and a small temple, the wilderness, the mount where he prayed, and the orientation of the Frankincense trail/ trade route that they likely followed. It all holds up quite well to scrutiny.

[gkearney]

Native American testing may not, or the testing process may be corrupted, but you can't say "the Book of Mormon peoples" have been tested. We don't know who they are or where they are, so how could we possibly test them?

We were fully confident in what we expected the DNA of Book of Mormon peoples to look like--Middle Eastern--until they failed to find any such DNA among Native Americans. Only then did we retreat to this new fallback position that we don't really have any idea what the DNA of Book of Mormon populations would be.

Ask yourself this: if the DNA of Native Americans revealed Middle Eastern ancestry, would we still be saying that we know nothing of Book of Mormon DNA? Of course not. This would be bombshell evidence vindicating the Book of Mormon so we'd be proclaiming confidently that of course Lehi and his cohorts were Middle Eastern.

What's so unimpressive about apologetics is that it's all so ad hoc. Evidence contradicts doctrine, so we walk it back after the fact and try to retcon it. Thomas Murphy released all this in 2002, and they tried to excommunicate him. Five years later they changed the intro to the Book of Mormon to accommodate his findings, and now we're pretending that it was never taught or believed that all Native Americans are directly descended from Lehi.

I’m not saying that such a thing was never taught or believed. What I am saying is that in doing so we were wrong.

[Wolfwoman]

Since it’s been brought up several times here about the KJV passages being found in the BofM…..

Also problematic was that although at various times either Hyrum, Oliver, or Martin were present at Grandin's to keep guard over the printer's manuscript, none of them fully kept an eye on John Gilbert, who, though trustworthy and well-meaning, took certain liberties with the transcription. Since he was left to himself to determine where punctuation marks should go, whenever the manuscript quoted passages similar to those in the Bible, he simply kept an open Bible handy and copied the punctuation directly from the King James version.

The problem with this, however, is that Gilbert copied more than just the punctuation. For example, we know that Nephi included extensive passages from Isaiah, and he did so that we in our day would have a more reliable version of those passages than could be found in our Bibles. But Gilbert thought it more efficient to simply copy the words right out of the Bible and set them into type, thus entering those old errors into the new covenant of the Book of Mormon. So rather than clarifying doctrine, In some of our editions Nephi appears to be repeating the same errors that the biblical translators passed down.

Taken from https://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2017 ... l.html?m=1

This is a very nice idea. Except it is provable false.
For instance, we have the original manuscript and it includes the same exact language as the KJV.

1 Nephi 20 (Isaiah 48)
Original: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... ly-1829/36
Printer: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... ry-1830/44

2 Nephi 7/8 (Isaiah 50/51)
Original: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... ly-1829/49
Original: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... ly-1829/50
Printer: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... ry-1830/64

It also is strange to think that Joseph would never correct this error in 14 years, yet he had no problems tweaking the Book of Mormon in other ways.

Meh. Doesn’t bother me.
There were thousands of changes from the original manuscript to the first edition of the BofM. Joseph did make some changes and correct some things in the second edition. I’m sure he didn’t have the time or energy to make thousands of changes. And perhaps new mistakes were introduced with the second printing. It’s a never ending story. JS also said, “ I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands.” Maybe he didn’t see it as the huge deal that you see it as.

[captainfearnot]

Who cares about the wrong direction that the early brethren took us in[?]

I guess I do.

[Telavian]

Meh. Doesn’t bother me.
There were thousands of changes from the original manuscript to the first edition of the BofM. Joseph did make some changes and correct some things in the second edition. I’m sure he didn’t have the time or energy to make thousands of changes. And perhaps new mistakes were introduced with the second printing. It’s a never ending story. JS also said, “ I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands.” Maybe he didn’t see it as the huge deal that you see it as.

I am specifically saying the idea that the printer (Grandin) slipped things in is completely false.

[captainfearnot]

I’m not saying that such a thing was never taught or believed. What I am saying is that in doing so we were wrong.

Understood.

But how did we discover that we had been wrong? Was it because of further light and knowledge that was revealed through our prophets, helping us to understand where past leaders had erred in their interpretations?

No, it was because of secular research that we at first resisted and then were grudgingly forced to accept.

[Telavian]

But how did we discover that we had been wrong? Was it because of further light and knowledge that was revealed through our prophets, helping us to understand where past leaders had erred in their interpretations?

No, it was because of secular research that we at first resisted and then were grudgingly forced to accept.

Very rarely will organizations correct themselves. They really have no incentive to do so.
Almost always they require an outside force to compel them to do what they should have already done.

[TheDuke]

on the two points made along the way.

1. As stated above the people of Lehi were very, very small. The wording of BoM makes them seem like large nations, but as I pointed out a while back old Jacob's nation with sooooo many wives could not have been more than 60 to 80 people, counting grandchildren and great grandchildren of Lehi!

2. they were from middle of US, eastern, upper, middle, where Joseph said they were! All the SA and Mexico stuff is from societies more than 1000 years later, very, very mixed people. Wrong DNA. Also, read again Mormon's introduction.......... they were not ever claimed to be much of a pure race after Jesus' time at all! Mormon says clearly there were all kinds of "ites", but for clarity he called the believers Nephites and unbelivers Lamanites........ to simply the story. I loved the post a while back that linked to the guy that translated the 180 (or so, don't recall) characters Joseph copied (not Anton text). He did research to translate himself using modern understanding of the glyphs and figures. and found the nephi meant - believer, lemuel meant - non believer, and laman meant anti-religious something....... using ancient simplified glyphs.... EXACTLY as Mormon stated.......... so they are ONLY called descendents at first and then only figuratively due to their beliefs..

3. It is obvious to any reader that digs into the book that the "translation" Joseph did, was not anything like what we currently call translation. He saw something that became thoughts/words. His thoughts and words. So, it makes sense it is all KJV words. I have stated MANY times that the words are not actually the words from the original prophets. My favorite example (of hundreds) is the quote from BroJ where he sees the Lord and Jesus introduces himself as "Jesus Christ"........... I mean his name WAS NOT Jesus in mortality and he was unnamed before birth! That is the English name, not his name. He didn't even say Jehovah or "I am" or anything. Further, he NEVER used the word "Christ" in his life time or before. That is Greek! It didn't exist until after his death with Paul using the Greek term. He could NOT have introduced himself to BroJ as Jesus Christ! Further, if he used the Greek term, it would not be his name! Perhaps I will be known as Jesus of Nazarath and be called "Christ" vs. messiah or such?????

THIS is why we all must be careful of taking specific words and contexts. That old crap about polygamy in Jacob (I am not for polygamy, don't get me wrong) as a case had to have been written hundreds of years later as, there was: no nation in his day, no more than 60 to 80 people, no gold-silver laying around to just find as he claims, and no way to make or focus on "fine twined linens"! In first generation having lived in Jerusalem, outside Jerusalem, on the coast, in the new world on the coast and then in a second home pushed out by Lamanites in ONE generation with half of the tribe leaving with Laman and Lemuel. They were AT BEST subsistence level, and at best 80 people if you count great grandchildren! Who is marrying those great grandchildren? (don't go into them having neighbors and trading for all that, too much movement and nothing to trade, in Jacob's day). I say it was rewritten in small plates no time before 33 AD! As do the language experts that don't have a hunt in LDS propaganda!

[captainfearnot]

The Book of Mormon doesn't quote word for word from the KJV.

And the Book of Mormon isn't like pseudo-biblical English, which is what it would be if Joseph Smith had authored it.

Have you actually read the Book of Mormon? This seems like such a silly claim to make as it is so easy to disprove.
I just checked again, sure enough 2 Nephi 6:6-7 is a direct quote from Isaiah 49:22-23. There are numerous similar quotes.

Not to open another can of worms, but is there a prevailing consensus regarding Deutero-Isaiah on this board?

[Telavian]

is there a prevailing consensus

No. It seems everyone has different opinions on this one.

[Socratic]

And the Book of Mormon isn't like pseudo-biblical English, which is what it would be if Joseph Smith had authored it.

There are, to be fair, quite a few times the BOM mixes up Biblical English features:

For example - in 1600s English and in the KJV, "thou/thee/thy" are singular pronouns and "ye/you" are plural pronouns.

But in the Book of Mormon, they're mixed together and used interchangeably:

• “For do ye not remember the priests of thy father, whom this people sought to destroy?” (Mosiah 20:18)

• “And now, my son, I have somewhat more to say unto thee than what I said unto thy brother; for behold, have ye not observed the steadiness of thy brother” (Alma 39:1)

• "Art thou convinced of the power of God? In whom did ye desire that Alma should show forth his sign? Would ye that he should afflict others, to show unto thee a sign?" (Alma 30:51)

[Jashon]

And the Book of Mormon isn't like pseudo-biblical English, which is what it would be if Joseph Smith had authored it.

There are, to be fair, quite a few times the BOM mixes up Biblical English features:

For example - in 1600s English and in the KJV, "thou/thee/thy" are singular pronouns and "ye/you" are plural pronouns.

But in the Book of Mormon, they're mixed together and used interchangeably:

• “For do ye not remember the priests of thy father, whom this people sought to destroy?” (Mosiah 20:18)

• “And now, my son, I have somewhat more to say unto thee than what I said unto thy brother; for behold, have ye not observed the steadiness of thy brother” (Alma 39:1)

• "Art thou convinced of the power of God? In whom did ye desire that Alma should show forth his sign? Would ye that he should afflict others, to show unto thee a sign?" (Alma 30:51)

I'm waiting for examples from the KJV of mixture. How about Shakespeare too.

[Jashon]

ye, Oxford English Dictionary:

2 Used instead of thou in addressing a single person (originally as a mark of respect or deference, later generally: cf. thou, you).

1481 Caxton Reynard xxi. (Arb.) 51 Saye that ye your self haue made the lettre.    c 1489 ― Sonnes of Aymon xiv. 336 Good lord, ye created & made our fader Adam.    1516 in Acts Parlt. Scot. (1875) XII. 36/2 We with oure lauthfull service thankis ȝoure grace of the grete Regarde ȝe Beir to the weill‥of our kingis gracis person.    1590 Spenser F.Q. i. viii. 26 The royall Virgin‥him thus bespake‥How shall I quite the paines, ye suffer for my sake?    1591 Shakes. Two Gent. i. ii. 49 Iul[ia]. Will ye be gon? Lu[cetta]. That you may ruminate. 1872 Tennyson Gareth & Lynette 1142 ‘Damsel’, he said, ‘ye be not all to blame’.  1878 Hardy Ret. Native i. iii, Be ye a-cold, Christian?

[gkearney]

I’m not saying that such a thing was never taught or believed. What I am saying is that in doing so we were wrong.

Understood.

But how did we discover that we had been wrong? Was it because of further light and knowledge that was revealed through our prophets, helping us to understand where past leaders had erred in their interpretations?

No, it was because of secular research that we at first resisted and then were grudgingly forced to accept.

We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

I don’t believe that secular research is excluded from what will be revealed.

[Socratic]

ye, Oxford English Dictionary:

2 Used instead of thou in addressing a single person (originally as a mark of respect or deference, later generally: cf. thou, you).

1481 Caxton Reynard xxi. (Arb.) 51 Saye that ye your self haue made the lettre.    c 1489 ― Sonnes of Aymon xiv. 336 Good lord, ye created & made our fader Adam.    1516 in Acts Parlt. Scot. (1875) XII. 36/2 We with oure lauthfull service thankis ȝoure grace of the grete Regarde ȝe Beir to the weill‥of our kingis gracis person.    1590 Spenser F.Q. i. viii. 26 The royall Virgin‥him thus bespake‥How shall I quite the paines, ye suffer for my sake?    1591 Shakes. Two Gent. i. ii. 49 Iul[ia]. Will ye be gon? Lu[cetta]. That you may ruminate. 1872 Tennyson Gareth & Lynette 1142 ‘Damsel’, he said, ‘ye be not all to blame’.  1878 Hardy Ret. Native i. iii, Be ye a-cold, Christian?

The problem is, you'd never mix "ye" and "thou" in the same sentence. None of those examples show that - KJV doesn't do it, Shakespeare doesn't do it, but the BOM does - which is atypical.

[Jashon]

ye, Oxford English Dictionary:

2 Used instead of thou in addressing a single person (originally as a mark of respect or deference, later generally: cf. thou, you).

1590 Spenser F.Q. i. viii. 26 The royall Virgin‥him thus bespake‥How shall I quite the paines, ye suffer for my sake?    1591 Shakes. Two Gent. i. ii. 49 Iul[ia]. Will ye be gon? Lu[cetta]. That you may ruminate.

The problem is, you'd never mix "ye" and "thou" in the same sentence. None of those examples show that - KJV doesn't do it, Shakespeare doesn't do it, but the BOM does - which is atypical.

I don't think that's correct, actually:

And ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen:
for the Lord God shall slay thee, and call his servants by another name:

Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the Lord;
and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you:

Touch. Give me your hand. Art thou learned?

lose all the serpentine craft of thy caduceus,
if ye take not that little little less than little wit from them that they have,

And you had become more common than ye in subject position by the 1570s.

[Mindfields]

I was talking with a close friend yesterday who has left the church. They listed the reasons why and one of the reasons was that Native Americans DNA has been tested and proved that they aren't the principle ancestors of ancient Israel and the Middle East. Maybe someone has already talked about this somewhere on here. But what do you say to that - that isn't fluffy and "I just know it with all my heart?"

Dealing with facts - how do you deal with that conundrum? I just never thought about it much before but I really respect them so I'm taking it seriously.

If the Book of Mormon peoples were of middle eastern decent, the DNA would bear that out. It doesn't. Native Americans have Asian DNA. Niether testimony nor wishing changes that fact.

Would it ?

If the claims in the book of Mormon are true...... I wonder if their DNA changed when their race changed

It is claimed in the book of Mormon that the change that came upon them was a genetic change and would be passed out to their offspring

I understand the claims are nonsensical, but your argument is dishonest

You literally just made something up and call my statement dishonest? So God changed their DNA from middle eastern to Asian? How random. Mormon god is a tricky dude.

[MikeMaillet]

I've never studied genetics and therefore am in no way qualified to discuss or argue anything regarding DNA and how it relates to the people of Lehi/Ishmael/Zoram... Scientists are forever changing their minds and altering their theories and that's okay with me because it is what science is all about. I find it strange to read a whole bunch of comments based on DNA testing, testing that not too many people understand. I can toss around words like "markers" and sound intelligent, until I'm asked to explain what that means. What is the rate of error in DNA testing? How often do the labs screw up a sample? Has science ever changed its mind about interpreting DNA samples? Has the science of DNA testing completed its evolution or are there still things that we don't fully understand?

Scientists have been known to lie and have been known to make serious mistakes. Hearing my idiot Prime Minister say, "Trust the scientists" is a cue for me to do just the opposite.

An earlier poster commented about the Holy Ghost and about putting the words of Moroni to the test. I agree with this approach because the Holy Ghost is the light of the Gentiles, not science. To place one's faith in science above faith in God is a very dangerous and foolish thing to do.

Mike

[Socratic]

ye, Oxford English Dictionary:

The problem is, you'd never mix "ye" and "thou" in the same sentence. None of those examples show that - KJV doesn't do it, Shakespeare doesn't do it, but the BOM does - which is atypical.

I don't think that's correct, actually:

And ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen:
for the Lord God shall slay thee, and call his servants by another name:

Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the Lord;
and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you:

Touch. Give me your hand. Art thou learned?

lose all the serpentine craft of thy caduceus,
if ye take not that little little less than little wit from them that they have,

And you had become more common than ye in subject position by the 1570s.

Huh. I stand corrected then.

[Shawn Henry]

I can accept that. But it sure seems like the JST really nails it on a lot (most?) of the corrections it makes. I guess, to be fair, a lot of the corrections a person could pretty easily come up with using basic critical thinking skills.

Yeah, that's true. I think there actually is inspiration and actual corrections in the JST, but I think they are there to convince us of the rest and that is the big misdirect.

[Shawn Henry]

I wonder if their DNA changed when their race changed

If all other simpler explanations have been exhausted then fine, wonder about DNA. There are, however, far more simpler explanations without having to stretch so.

[Shawn Henry]

it was because of secular research that we at first resisted and then were grudgingly forced to accept.

It was indeed and we should be grateful for the correction no matter the source.

[Shawn Henry]

I don’t believe that secular research is excluded from what will be revealed.

God will indeed use secular methods as well, that's a good point. The key to remember there though is that the vast majority of secular science has been bought and paid for by big money. If you have unlimited money its super easy to find ten scientists to peer review anything.

[larsenb]

I don’t believe that secular research is excluded from what will be revealed.

God will indeed use secular methods as well, that's a good point. The key to remember there though is that c If you have unlimited money its super easy to find ten scientists to peer review anything.

'the vast majority of secular science has been bought and paid for by big money." Not really. And even the science that is supported by big money, most of it is trying to generate accurate results.

The science you really have to be leery of is where the big money is primarily interested in results that support a political agenda or is pushing the creation of a profit-generating product or system.

[larsenb]

Unfortunately, for Meldrum's DNA claims, they just don't wash with geneticists who have outlined the markers Meldrum focuses on. It doesn't make sense to believe part of the genetic story and then throw out what you don't think applies, as Meldrum does.

That may or may not be. I don't have anywhere near the knowledge or background to debate the point when it comes to the genetics, so I won't even try.

From my reading of the experts, its been quite conclusively established that Meldrum is greatly conflating the actual DNA data on the X haplogroups and markers. This data has been posted many times on this forum. You can start with the LDS Italian geneticist Ugo Perego, for his views on the matter.

Here is a good overview of the difficulties of using DNA evidence to prove or disprove the Book of Mormon, an article written by Ugo Perego: Is Decrypting the Genetic Legacy of America’s Indigenous Populations Key to the Historicity of the Book of Mormon?, Ugo A. Perego and Jayne E. Ekins; Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 38 (2020): 355-390 found at: https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... -mormon-2/

You can also see the article at: http://bmaf.org/node/455 from 2014, but not sure how these two versions may differ.