Simon Southerton, who is struggling hard to be a critic of the Church in a long-since dead area is back again. Maybe his book had low sales last year, so he is trying to drum up some more buyers.
Anyhow, The Age had this, in part, to say:
Last year he published a rebuttal of the Book of Mormon teachings that Native American and Polynesian ancestors came from ancient Israelite tribes who had migrated to the Americas centuries before Christ.
In all the years I’ve read the Book of Mormon?¢‚Ǩ‚Äùin all the times I’ve read it from cover to cover?¢‚Ǩ‚ÄùI must have entirely skipped over the part where it teaches “Native Americans” and “Polynesians” are descended from Israelite tribes.
Maybe if Southerton focused more on what was in the Book of Mormon and less on how members of the Church have traditionally extrapolated the Book of Mormon, it wouldn’t be an issue that he “is facing possible ex-communication”.
I wonder why didn’t wait another week. If he had, he could have done double duty by bringing about press for his new book, and celebrating the first anniversary of the last time he brought this up.
I agree with the bishopric member. Kim is going through the same cognitive dissonance that I and so many other LDS and former LDS members travel through.
As a former Mormon, I now see that this the mental gymnastics required to retain ones belief in the Book of Mormon is in no way unique to the Mormon faith.
Several years ago a very nice Jehovah’s Witness couple came to visit me and attempted to convert me to their religion. Using the internet I was able to show them, from past copies of The Watchtower and Awake!, that Watchtower leaders had made tons of false preditions about the end of the world. One leader, “Judge” Joseph Rutherford had even built a special house in California for the ancient prophets to return to in 1925.
What answer did they have to the chaotic leadership patterns of their past leaders? It went something like this:
“Those men were sincere but they had less light on the subject. We have greater light today.”
If you REALLY want to believe in the Book of Mormon, the Watchtower, Scientology, UFO cults, Creationism, etc…..you will find your FARMS.
“Kim is going through…cognitive dissonance”
Actually, the correct tense would be “Kim went through cognitive dissonance”.
Kim:
Thanks for the response. I am sure you have undergone some emotional experiences. Good luck on your journey. Both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young taught men lived on the Moon and Sun (and apparently looked like Quakers!). Sure they were wrong. Were they speaking as prophets? Two takes on that. Yes, but the members of the church had no way of knowing because scientific knowledge hadn’t revealed the true nature of those sphere but the members beleived anyway. No, both were expressing popular views of the day. (Some would say that the Book of Mormon is nothing more than an expression of the popular and controversial ideas of the early 19th century).
It sounds like you approach church like a lunch buffet. You feel free to pick what you want to believe and reject the ridiculous. I have no problem with your approach, as if it would matter anyway. But this approach is inconsistent with the message of Mormonism, that God reveals his truth through modern day prophets. The influence of the Holy Ghost has proven to be less than an ideal way to decipher whether a prophet speaks as a prophet or not. I have had warm inside feelings about things that latter turned out to be wrong. So how am I to judge the words of the prophets? The only solution I can find is to hold them accountable for all their words. However, today’s wiser leaders are saying less and less as the issues become more defined.
I am very tired of hearing: “I don’t know if we’ve ever taught that” and “I don’t know” “I am sustained as such” etc. What do we believe, do we believe anything at all. Are prophets nothing more than spin doctors? In an age where direction is needed and the challenges are great the heavens are silent because the prophets have closed up shop and are waiting for what science reveals so they won’t be wrong again.
Sorry for the rant.
This is one of the major problems with you Mormons. You have the weasel out clause. Did he speak it as a prophet or as a man? A prophet is a prophet and if he does not speak the word of God at all times he is not a prophet. References to this may be found in Deuteronomy.
I was taught all my life that the Ensign is scripture for our Day. I would also hope at the dedication of a temple that a prophet was speaking as a prophet by the spirit and not just as a man. Would you not agree?
“Actually, the correct tense would be ‘Kim went through cognitive dissonance’.”
Well when you say this:
“Do not get me wrong. I do not believe the Book of Mormon to be a work of fiction. I sincerely beleive it was written by ancient prophets and translated by the power of God through Joseph Smith.”
But also say this:
“You see, for me, the importance of the Book of Mormon isn’t about whether it is about real people or not. It’s not about whether the horses and elephants it refers to are the horses and elephants we know or some other entirely different animals……Could the Book of Mormon be complete fiction? Maybe. Do I care? Not really…”
It makes me think you are still working through. Nothing wrong with still being on the journey. You may end up like a friend of mine who is an Institute Director and a bishop. He stays in Mormonism not so much because it’s true but because he’s able to get many good things out of it in the ward in which he lives. Besides, he tells me that if he did leave the church he would become an atheist. Perhaps one day he will.
I respect his path and I respect yours.
“A prophet is a prophet and if he does not speak the word of God at all times he is not a prophet.”
That’s a crock. If President Hinckley is sitting at supper and said, “This roast tastes like rubber”, is that prophetic? It’s ridiculous to expect a prophet to abandon all personal opinions and only speak the word of God at all times. Believing something like this quickly leads to making prophets infallible; a very dangerous idea.
“I was taught all my life that the Ensign is scripture for our Day.”
So was I. But until I raise my hand to accept it as such (as the saints did for past revelations), I no longer view it that way. Besides, very view articles in the Ensign are even from prophets.
“I would also hope at the dedication of a temple that a prophet was speaking as a prophet by the spirit and not just as a man. Would you not agree?”
Perhaps, but a temple dedication is a prayer of pleading, not a revelation from God.
“It makes me think you are still ‘working through.'”
The key though is that I did not say, “the Book of Mormon might be fiction, but I am sill struggling with that idea”. I said the possibility exists that it could be fiction, but it makes no difference to me. My decision has been made. There is no dissonance.
“It sounds like you approach church like a lunch buffet. You feel free to pick what you want to believe and reject the ridiculous.”
Sort of, but not quite. I certainly reject the ridiculous, but what I beleive has less to do with what I have chosen and more to do with how I have confirmed it.
A temple dedicatory prayer has been taught to have been received by revelation and is different than other prayers or pleadings.
See:http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm$xhitlist_q=%5BRank+500%5D%28%5BField+general+conference%3Atemple%20dedication%20revelation%5D%29$xhitlist_x=Advanced$xhitlist_s=relevance-weight$xhitlist_d=Magazines/ensign$xhitlist_hc=%5BXML%5D%5Bkwic%2C0%5D$xhitlist_xsl=xhitlist.xsl$xhitlist_vpc=first$xhitlist_sel=title%3Bpath%3Bcontent-type%3Bhome-title%3Bhit-context%3Bfield%3Azr%3Bfield%3ARef
Kim:
I suspect your decision is a product of cognitive dissonance. Many who believe various things must invent a new fact in order to survive traumatic discoveries which challenge old beliefs. Instead of accepting the obvious, persons who suffer from cognitive dissonance accept a new fable to maintain belief in an old and discredited belief. We are not the only ones who do this. Many religious practicioners go through this. It just interesting to watch happen in others. We can quickly view others who go through this make believe, but when it is happening to us, we become blind. Funny but tragic.
Like I said, “the correct tense would be ‘Kim went through cognitive dissonance'”.
Kim,
You might think that you have arrived at a final conclusion but come on! Your only 31 years old! At 34 I left Mormonism and all of organized religion and became an agnostic. At 42 I still feel the same way but I realize that I may (and probably will) change in some way if I live to a ripe old age.
Mormonism changes also. You need to prepare yourself for that. It could be possible that one day 30 years from now the Book of Mormon will be looked upon as “inspired fiction” or dropped altogether as Mormonism continues it’s march toward becoming a mainline Protestant Church. (And it is doing that. I’m a Methodist ministers son…I can see it!)
At any rate, I was in 7 Elders Quorum Presidencies, twice as President. I don’t envy having the hometeaching mokey on my back anymore! I wish you the best of luck with that!
What does age have to do with it? When I nearly left Mormonism and God, I was only 24. Just because you waited until your thirties does not mean everyone will.
I don’t have the home teaching monkey on my back. The home teachers do. I do not feel guilty in my PPI with the bishop or the stake presidency if home teaching is low. I report the efforts we take as a presidency to make home teaching effective, but the onus always falls back to the home teachers. No guilt here.
I am not the one who posted regarding age, but I do agree that age has a lot to do with it.
You have been private regarding your questioning of church doctrine. As you become older and have more life experiences, more than what you have thus far experienced, you will see things differently. It happens.
I will say that you are very competent for someone who is 31. But you still cling to your security blanket.
It’s not a big deal. I have heard these sort of things my whole adult life. I am always too young. Maybe when I am on my death bed and grey and balding, I’ll finally be taken seriously. But whatever. I know what I’ve experienced, and that is all that matters. People can say what they want and make whatever assumptions they want about me, but no one but me (well, okay, God, too) truly knows me.
In fact, I am the world’s expert on me.
After 39 years as a Church member, it came as a sad day when I discovered that, no matter how great the doctrine may be, no matter what great things the Church may do, it is unfortunately, fiction. As sad as that, once I realized Mormonism was fiction, all of Christianity came tumbling down behind it.
I believe in God, in MOST of the doctrines that the Church has taught me. However, anything to do with Joseph Smith, or man’s involvement at any level, is pure fiction.
I do not believe in Jesus as the Savior. He may have lived, may have taught, but he was not resurrected. There’s obviously something to all of what man has rolled together to call religion, but I just do not buy the package any longer.
Simon Southerton only solidified my position. I didn’t even know he or his book existed until after I came to my own conclusions. It was refreshing to see men like him and Thomas Murphy actually using their brains and not only their hearts.
For what it’s worth…
Clark
I am so sorry.
My testimony of Jesus Christ is very real and I know that He is my Saviour, and although Joseph Smith had his failings too, I know also that he was a prophet of God. I can’t explain it, but nothing, no research that may come out to defeat these beliefs (or attempt to) can change the fact that my testimony is very real of these things and I have always known it.
I hope you do have peace in your relationship with Heavenly Father.
You see, that is exactly what I’m talking about. Your testimony is completely from the heart. Unsubstantiated, unproven, even disproven, but yet nothing could sway you from the “truth”. Nothing, possibly, except fact. However, there is no fact that you could possibly accept unless it fits into your neat little Mormon mold. And that’s fine. To you, every you say IS very real. As long as you can live that way, then good for you. I, for one, cannot.
However, as with me and my 39 years, nothing can sway you. It was quite by accident that I fell upon the information I did. And as I said, it made me very sad. Not sad enough to ignore it, but sad nonetheless.
Probably, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn’t really matter what you believe, as long as you are true to it.
My peace with God is unshaken. My peace with man is on the rocks.
Clark, you are right. Faith isn’t something that can be proven. I am glad you are at peace with the Lord. I hope that one day you can come to peace with man.
Also, I don’t have a neat little Mormon mold :) There are many things I do not understand, but my testimony of Jesus Christ, of the prophet and of the Book of Mormon are unshakeable because, well, I can’t explain why, I just KNOW they are. All I know is, I have a strong faith.
I have spent alot of time studying the native Americans and the Book of Mormon. Many people(Including Joseph Smith) believed that the Book of Mormon is talking about the Native Americans. The Truth of the Matter is that none of it can be proved or disproved. We can find what ever evidence we want but it will do absolutly no good at all in convincing anyone. I have a close friend (From Samoa) that recieved a personal revelation that the Samoans are descended from the Nephites. (See Hagoth The ship builder Alma 63:5) This he believes with all his heart. I will only say that I served as a counselor to him in the Elder’s quorum presidency. I have felt his testimony and I believe him.
I cannot prove anything But I believe the Book of Mormon is True.
“The Truth of the Matter is that none of it can be proved or disproved.”
More appropriately the truth of the matter is that none of the claims made by Southerton et al will ever convince the die-hard believer anyway.
The anachronisms in the BoM are plentiful, and the lack of evidence to support it as an actual history of the north/south/central americas is quite obvious.
Would it matter if it were not a literal history of the americas?
Would that change your testimony?
I have found this thread totally fascinating. I too have been experiencing this “cognitive dissonance” over the past year and a half. Rick might be suprised to hear this since I have been a rather stubborn defender of the faith in past conversations with him. I guess that is part of process.
I relate to Kim’s feelings of abandonment when his prayers went unanswered. I agree that much of what has been taught and believed in the church seems ridiculous. I too have learned upsetting things that I cannot ignore. I feel embarassed at having been blind to my own indoctrination and assuming that anything critical of the church had to be a deception, yet I mourn the loss of my happily uniformed and unaware existance.
Cognitave dissonance is indeed painful. It confuses me to think about how my parents and grandparents, all of whom I repect as intelligent and rational, could buy into it all, and more importantly, why are certain aspects of church history and church teachings hidden from common knowledge?
Unlike Kim, I have not gotten past this entirely. I have not made conclusions either way. I think I would have long ago, except for the few spiritual experiences I have had which I think Kim and Mary understand. Of course, spiritual feelings can be easily discounted, I know. But are profound feelings which seem to originate from an external source always less relevant than science? I don’t know, I suppose that is up to an individual to decide according to what they have experienced.
And what about miracles that simply cannot be explained away? The most compelling of all is my experience as a very young child when I recieved a preisthood blessing. I remember hands being layed on my head and I remember something being said, though I was not paying attention to the words nor did I have a clear understanding of what a preisthood blessing was so it cannot be explained by the placebo effect of my faith because I did not know enough about what was happening to have faith. All I know was that I was instantly relieved of what tormented me. The effect was powerful and real and I have never forgotten it. What am I to make of this?
At the very least, I must acknowledge that there is a power out there, a power that is profoundly good. I don’t think it is exclusive to Mormons, but there is no doubt in my mind that it can be tapped into by preisthood holders. Does this prove Mormonism to be true? I don’t know, but this is the only reason why I haven’t been able to let go of the religion thus far. I am OK with letting go of everything else, all the doctrines, the traditions, etc. I can handle that at this point, in fact it makes more sense to do so. I am not being irrational in a battle to hold onto old beleifs.
But what is a person to make of their first-hand witness of evidence of the power of the preisthood? No one can judge another of being delusional since they were not the one experiencing it.
Meanwhile, I must tell Kim how grateful I am for his insight and willingness to share it. Especially your comment,
“I certainly reject the ridiculous, but what I believe has less to do with what I have chosen and more to do with how I have confirmed it.”
I guess that is what it all comes down to.
Anyhow, I obviously don’t have any solid conclusions. I really don’t have anyone else to talk to about all this, so if you’re still reading this, thanks for listening and thanks for providing a forum where I could freely express my thoughts.
Rick Said “The anachronisms in the BoM are plentiful, and the lack of evidence to support it as an actual history of the north/south/central americas is quite obvious.” We have Cortez and Columbus to thank for the lack of evidence of the Book of Mormon.
Nermalcat: I also was disillusioned as I began to learn that the things I was taught as a child were, in some instances not as they were presented to me, but I, over the years, have come to the conclusion that the Gospel is all about faith. We have no evidence whatsoever. We have scientists and critics trying to prove it false, We have some false information coming to us from inside, We have, dare I say it? Falible human beings as leaders. Yet the Lords Gospel still seems to go forth, inspite of all the obsticles.
Yet there are simple things that give us hope for our belief. The Whisperings of the still small voice, to me, have a way of drowning out all of the other noise against it.
I don’t have all, or many of, the answers, but the one answer I have is this.
If we are faithfull, and endure to the end, We Will Know.
I had many questions and no spiritual witness for most of my life. I had had many small moments of spiritual guidence, and that was what I built my faith on. I was raised in the church, but it wasn’t until I was over 42 years old that I had my more enlightening spiritual experience, telling me that my faith throughout the years had not been in vain.
Ray, exactly that. You said it.
Nermalcat, the fact that you are seeking is a good sign, and will help you. Questioning isn’t bad of course, it’s what helps you find answers. You are so right, there is good and spirituality in other religions, spiritual beliefs and experiences. The Church of Jesus Christ doesn’t have the monopoly on that. The only thing we have right now is the keys for ordinances. Lots of other good too, yes. But Heavenly Father is aware of all His children, where ever they may be and whatever they are going through.
I know it’s an old cliche, but it is still true, it is often darkest before the dawn, and through our deepest trials comes our greatest growth. This can be applied to so many areas in life. My personal favourite is of course, birth. The pain is most intense, most “uncontrollable” and “unbearable” just before the baby is born. And then comes the joy. It’s the same with knowledge; doubt and lack of knowledge are there until peace and understanding come. When it comes is anyone’s guess, but it’s after these times that knowledge is solidified. In whatever arena
Thankyou Ray and Mary.
“We have Cortez and Columbus to thank for the lack of evidence of the Book of Mormon.”
Why is that?
I was giving a blessing to a close friend the other day because of some trials he was going through.(job Related) This friend is a very very faithfull honest decent guy. In the blessing I felt impressed to reming him of something that remains true for everyone that ever has a strong testimony;
We all must have that testimony tried. Even to the very breaking point. We all must go through our own Gethsemanie. That is the test for us. We will go through many periods of trial but one will be the hardest. We call it the refiners fire. If we endure that point then afterwards, in my opinion, and in my experience, the trials change. With me it seems like I havn’t had to work as hard to build or keep my testimony since then.
It seeems like the spirit is closer, and my faith is stronger, even during subsequent periods of trial. President Hinkley’s challenge to read the Book of Mormon was one such trial period for me. I kept his challenge and waited for the increased portion of the spirit and stronger testimony to come. It came but from a very unexpected direction. I started to find evidence that contradicts the Book of Mormon’s challenge, as far as being a history of the people that lived here in the Americas. As the evidence piled up I started to ask myself one question.
Will I get closer to Jesus Christ by reading the Book of Mormon and Abiding it’s principles. And the answer is YES! Nothing else matters. Any other evidence or proof that can be given mean exactly nothing. I cannot prove the Book or Mormon or the Church True. But I know it beyond any doubt or hesitation.
BTW If anyone knows of a rightious single, or divorced woman my friend is 42 and looking. (He is very shy and asked for my help)
Rick: In your history classes when Cortez and Columbus came to the Americas they took all the Gold and other valuables they could find, and distroyed any writings from the indians, refering to it as Pagan Worship, and forced on them their version of “Christianity”
Ray, are you seriously stating that hundreds of years of archeological evidence was destroyed so completely that we can’t find any today?
Not only that, I must have missed the part where the Spanish travelled throughout Mexico, Central and South America obliterating every bone, sword and stone they found.
If you will look deeper into history you will find that the Spanish did travel extensivly in south and central america, and they did remove all remnants of any religion among the indians, as well as any of their written records. Considering that the Book or Mormon record ends around 421 AD it is not a stretch to think that many people have gone through those areas and taken any artifacts that could be linked to anything.
In ohio a very large deposit of human remains was found by a number of different people ranging from the mid 1800s to the late 1900s.
I am not saying that these prove or disprove the Book of Mormon.
My brother used to say
“If you want to find out THAT something is true you will find it regardless of the facts. If you wint to find out IF something is true you will find the truth given the facts.”
IF and THAT are the key words here. I have delt with many anti-Mormon people in my life that because their mother or father said it was false that was all they needed to hear. Others have had to deal with a bad experience and from that moment on nothing that anyone said or did would change their mind.
It all boils down to faith. If somewhere in south or central america a city was found that had “Zerehamla” written on a sign in front of it, how many people would then believe? Would they need to have faith? Isn’t this kind of fiath extremely volitile? People converted to anything, (not only religion) through evidence don’t tend to stay converted very long.The Lord wants to know if we will have complete faith in the face of doubt. That is true faith.
Ray, I tihnk you hit the nail on the head – it’s all about faith.
I’d certainly like a reference to the mass destruction inflicted by the Spanish on all the potential archeological evidence for the book of Mormon, though.
You may want to notify FAIR of this ground breaking discovery as well. They’re always looking for another piece of the apologetic puzzle.
I learned about the spanish destruction in school. It was part of history.
And I am not going to support anyones efforts to make excuses for anything (Meaning the FAIR) I believe what I believe and I make no excuses. I have done enough research to know that it will never acomplish anything. If someone is looking for proof, or evidence to support their testimony than they don’t have one.
When my brother and I would argue login, religion, and athiism, I would finish my point by stating.
“I believe what I believe in spite of any facts or evidence that can be stated”
Because I know that all truth is “given to act in the sphere in which it is placed” (D&C 93) What ever proof or “facts” that someone can state mean nothing after we are out of this world.
We would argue Logic not Login
The spanish distruction is part of History, I learned it in school.
As far as the FAIR, I have done enough research that I am not going to make excuses or appologize for what I believe. I believe that truth is “given to act in the sphere in which it was placed” (D&C 93)SO any evidence or “proof” that someone can give “proving” the Book of Mormon False means absolutly Squat!!
Sorry I didn’t think that my first post went through
I’m telling you that I did not learn anything remotely like what you are describing, Ray.
I’ve asked my History Major, LDS best friend about it as well, and neither of us has the slightest idea what you’re talking about.
For those reasons, I’ve asked for some references. No biggie.
As far as FAIR goes, why wouldn’t you want to notify them of such an enormously significant finding as the Spanish removing all evidences of the BoM?
I’m just saying that as the spologetic wing at BYU, they might want to write something about it – if it indeed holds any water, or you may say is ‘like unto a dish’.
;)
I am saying that I don’t have a reference. It was taught in school many years ago. I took notice because I am LDS, and wondered why there was no evidence.
I remember watching a video (Reinactment)that showed the spanish taking and burning written records and stealing and melting down all the gold and taking it back to Spain.
I think what Rick is getting at, Ray, is that while the Spanish did destroy records and artifacts, there is no evidence that they destroyed every archaeological site and artifact of the ancient Americans, nor removed any trace of horses, elephants, and the like, and so on.
I Never said they removed archiological sites, or evidence of horses or anything like that. I said “and they did remove all remnants of any religion among the indians” Only of religion because they decided that it was all pagan so they intruduced them to their form of Christianity.
It has been interesting to read this thread. It explains a lot of the strange ideals that have been presented in other threads.
Not so fast! I have read through this thread, and I note that
somebody tried to pull academic rank earlier, so I will do the same. I also have a PhD, and it is in a scientific field (physics, Purdue U.), unlike (I suspect) the earlier poster. Everyone seems to be taking the DNA evidence as settled, but as much as biologists know about DNA itself, I doubt
many of them are experts in the statistical methods they use to reach conclusions. The whole question is framed in the wrong way. The Book of Mormon says that a relatively small group of people (less than 50) came to the new world around 600 BC. I think it is clear that there were already
people living here. In fact, the Mulekites mention that Corianton stayed with them for nine months, which means that the Jaredite civilization was collapsing even as Lehi’s family was spreading out in their new home. It also means
that there were people left over after the Jaredite collapse, and that these people did not recognize Corianton as a great leader. In other words, there were plenty of people around, even if they aren’t described in detail. The question then becomes: how large a sample is needed to detect DNA traces from this small group in the midst of a larger population? The relative numbers really matter, and with them, we can set limits on the feasibility of the Book of Mormon’s account of things. But it will be a percentage, not a definite yes or no. The question can even be turned around, where the absence of evidence will give us an estimate of how large the indigenous population would have to be to mask the effects of the small group. Once we hit absurdly large populations, we can say the Book of Mormon is in trouble. (With the
understanding that the numbers will change as DNA science is refined over time.) If we are talking about mitchondrial DNA, the small group is even smaller, since we are only talking about women. You will
note that Southerton is always careful to use the premise of a large Middle Eastern footprint so that he doesn’t have to worry about statistical issues. He argues that Nephites could not have dominated culturally without relatively large
numbers, but I disagree. They would have had a superior technology and culture, with steel working and a written language. They also were arriving on the heels of the collapse of the civilization before them. Further, intermarriage might not be as widespread as the DNA studies assume. If the Nephites tried to “marry within the faith,” the spread of their DNA would not occur as rapidly as it would otherwise. (It would, for example, be
interesting to see how easily DNA studies could predict the number of Jews in Germany prior to the rise of Hitler based on modern population samples.) In the
case of mtDNA, it is not hard to imagine that women were restricted (by stubborn parents) in their marriage choices even more than men, further limiting the spread. All of these factors contribute to a full statistical analysis of the problem. Without this analysis, geneticists can only make broad statements. I could go further and start discussing how DNA sequencing is done, along with possible sources of error such as parallel
mutations and mtDNA hotspots (“Reduced-Median-Network Analysis of Complete Mitochondrial DNA Coding-Region Sequences for the Major African, Asian, and European Haplogroups”, Herrnstadt et. al.,
Am. J. Human Genetics, 70:1152-1171, 2002), but my main point is to be a little more cautious about all of this. In the research papers that I have read (have you read any?), there is
still a lot of work to do to characterize and calibrate mutation rates (which are not uniform along the DNA sequence- there are fast and slow sites!), as well as to
fully sequence the 16,000 nitrogenous base sites present in
mtDNA. There is no such thing as an experimental scientific result without error bars. If it doesn’t have error bars, somebody doesn’t know what they are doing and should call in a qualified statistician. From what I have read about Southerton (his own account on some ex-Mormon site), it looks like he was just burned out and was actually glad to find an excuse to kick himself out of the church. How many other LDS geneticists have done the same because of all this?
This is a follow-up on the previous posting. I noticed that I assumed the importance of variable mutation rates is understood, but since it may not be, I will make it more
clear. mtDNA studies rely on something called haplogroups, which is how populations are organized. Haplogroups correspond to various sequences in the DNA strand that are unique to different populations. Early on in the research, a control region (also called the D-loop) in mitochondrial
DNA was designated as a common reference for purposes of chronological calibration. It was later discovered that this was perhaps not the best choice because it has abnormally high mutation rates compared to other portions of mtDNA. Estimates of the mutation rates in this region have varied
by as much as two orders of magnitude (100 times) (“The
Mutation Rate in the Human mtDNA Control Region”. Sigurdardottir et. al., Am. J. Human Genetics, 66:1599-1609, 2000). Our common progenitor (so-called mitochondrial Eve) was placed in Africa to a time between 150,000 to 200,000 years
ago, and then, given estimates of the mutation rate, haplogroup divergences were dated from this starting point. But if the mutation rate is off, then so is the estimated starting date. Because of this, creationists have seized on the possibility of a time span 100 times shorter to justify the biblical chronology of about 6,000 years between now and the biblical Eve. (Nobody has mentioned it yet, but Mormons also have a problem with this since Eve was supposed to be somewhere in Missouri about 6,000 years ago.)
I don’t want to get side-tracked on the evolutionary implications however, so back to the Book of Mormon question. If the time span is in fluctuation, it also means that the haplogroup that we are looking for in American populations is in fluctuation. More clearly, if the time span is really more
compressed than anthropology suggests, then a mutation that
should have been present in 600 BC according to anthropological calibration would have actually occurred later on. That means Sarah would not have had the mutated sequence, because it really occurred after she left, not before. As mentioned above, the situation is actually quite difficult, because different portions of the mtDNA sequence mutate at different rates, so even if the calibration of the control
region is finally settled, you still have to worry about the
independent mutation rates of haplogroup sequences in other parts of the strand to be sure you have everything straight. Professors, graduate students, and postdocs are getting publications, degrees, and tenure by studying this stuff
right now, so a little patience is in order before we start shredding the Book of Mormon and becoming just as bland as every other Christian faith out there.
It may be that haplogroup X, present in small percentages in North American Indian tribes
(“mtDNA Haplogroup X: An Ancient Link between Europe/Western Asia and North America?”, Brown et. al., Am. J. Human Genetics, 63:1852-1861, 1998 and “Origin and Diffusion of mtDNA Haplogroup X”, Reidla et. al., Am. J. Human Genetics, 73:1178-1190, 2003), is the signature of the Lehi migration. Its arrival is dated
to about 15 – 25 thousand years ago, but as noted above, this is based on an anthropological calibration. The X group is not present in Asia, but is present in Near Eastern and European populations. Research on the details of how the X group arrived and spread in the Americas is ongoing. Before anyone accuses me of mental gymnastics, let me reiterate that everything I have said is well-fixed, except for
the chronological calibration of the control region in mtDNA. It is on this that much of the debate is centered, and geneticists are still not settled on it. Most of them don’t care about the Book of Mormon, so if the debate is ongoing, we have to sit on the sidelines until the academic dust settles and only then apply the results to our little piece of the puzzle. In another ten or twenty
years, it is likely that the answer will converge between one of the two extremes so far (and the 150,000 to 200,000 year calibration is at one of those extremes). If we take the current middle ground, then 15 – 25,000 becomes 1,500 – 2,500, and the Book of Mormon account has good support. I don’t mean to imply that it will have strong evidence in its favor, but neither will Southerton’s categorical statements still apply. It will then be, as it was before, largely a matter of faith.
And your point is?
So basically your agreeing with Southerton that the natives are not jews and early church leaders did not speak the truth and thus could not have been speaking for God?
Interesting concept for a Phd.
14 million words down to 30.
I’m not saying church leaders were right in declaring that Mayans, Polynesians, and other Native Americans are really Jewish, I am saying that the Book of Mormon is not proven wrong by the research. The scientific jury is still out on this. Don’t use DNA evidence as incontrovertible proof until it is. Science is a very powerful tool for discovering answers, but the process of discovery is usually very slow with lots of false starts before the exhilaration of a breakthrough. We have to be patient, often for years. Church leaders can say that the Book of Mormon is a history of American people, which we believe it is. That would mean that the Lamanites, even if they weren’t Jewish, still believed in Christ and so on, and that their descendants ought to know about it. You may think that’s not fair because we haven’t proved it, but that doesn’t mean we can’t teach it. Troy was a myth until it was found, and so was the Mycenean civilization. Science can’t give a complete description of migrations to the Americas yet. Wait a few years and we will see. If you want church leaders to be right about everything they say as proof that God is speaking to them, then you are lucky you weren’t living in Jerusalem around 600 BC.
And don’t rag on the PhD- it is precisely Southerton’s scientific expertise that makes all of this legitimate in many people’s eyes. I have seen very little peer level discussion of his work on the Book of Mormon question. I am not a geneticist, but I do have experience working with scientific data and its interpretation, so I thought I would say something about it. You need a geneticist to get the data, but once you have it, it becomes largely a mathematical and statistical problem. How do I analyze this collection of A, T, C, and G sequences, knowing that they can switch places through a mutation? It is mathematically similar to the problem of a noisy digital communication channel with some bit error rate, only the bit error rate is nonuniform along the sequence, and each bit has four possible values instead of two. You also need a good geneticist to determine the mutation rates along the sequence, and that is what is being presently researched as I described above. Once this is done to the satisfaction of the majority of the genetics community, I predict you will see an argument between biologists and anthropologists about their differing chronologies. If I turn out to be wrong, it must be because God doesn’t speak to me.
In fact, the more I think about it, the more the problem really is like a noisy digital communication channel. I wonder if someone has already published a paper on this? I will have to take a look and see what is out there in the literature. If there is nothing, I might take it on myself and submit it for publication… it would be a fun problem.