Difference between revisions of "Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/DNA"

The introduction to the Book of Mormon is not part of the scripture. (Elder Bruce R. McConkie, who helped write the introduction and other aids for the current edition of the scriptures was quite clear that the non-scriptural textual items were helps, not canon, and even granted they could well contain mistakes. This likely applies to the introduction, which was only inserted in 1981. See: Mark McConkie (editor), Doctrines of the Restoration: Sermons and Writings of Bruce R. McConkie (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1989),250, 289–290. ISBN 978-0884946441. GL direct link)

It is significant that Ms. Robertson appeals to something that is not in the Book of Mormon. She hopes she can settle the matter without even addressing the Book of Mormon text itself!

It is true that some LDS members and leaders have believed that the Book of Mormon teaches that all Amerindians are entirely descended from Book of Mormon peoples. But, as early as 1928, a completely different view was taught in General Conference by Elder Levi Edgar Young:

There must be a clear distinction, it grows every year more evident, between the origins of America's ancient people and the sources of their culture. The human material of the pre- Columbian societies probably came from Asia by way of Alaska, the orthodox route long accepted for the American Indians…Among many social belongings abandoned along the route seem to have been most of the things called intellectual. The men and women who peopled America arrived, intellectually, with the clothes they stood in…Dr. Uhle urges an alternative [theory for how high culture arose in the Americas]…Occasional cultured mariners from India, China, Japan or other lands may have landed, he believes, few in numbers, but full of ideas, to bring to the rude American societies…just the hint that culture was possible. Small numerically as this source of inspiration must have been, it may conceivably have been the seed from which sprouted the great achievements of Peru and Central America…

—Levi Edgar Young, Conference Report (October 1928), 103–106, italics added.

Clearly, Elder Young did not feel that there was any "official" or "required" view of what percentage of American Indians are Lamanites—Church members are not bound by the interpretations of men, but only by what the scripture says.

Why did early members assume that the Amerindians were all from the Lamanites? In the 19th century, it was “common knowledge” that the Indians were a single racial group, and so most likely to have a single origin. Since the Book of Mormon taught that at least some Indians must have come from Israel, it was a natural conclusion to see them all as coming from Israel. Most early Saints likely did not even conceive of there being multiple “groups” of Indians at all. To explain some was to explain them all.

As members came to understand the variety of Amerindian groups, it became easier for them to read the Book of Mormon text without the "one Indian only" bias that came from their culture.

Simply put, despite the claims of Pamela Robertson, the Church has no official position on the matter. When asked, a spokesman for the Church said:

As to whether these were the first inhabitants…we don't have a position on that. Our scripture does not try to account for any other people who may have lived in the New World before, during or after the days of the Jaredites and the Nephites, and we don't have any official doctrine about who the descendants of the Nephites and the Jaredites are. Many Mormons believe that American Indians are descendants of the Lamanites [a division of the Nephites], but that's not in the scripture.

—Stewart Reid, LDS Public Relations Staff, quoted by William J. Bennetta in The Textbook Letter (March-April 1997), published by The Textbook League (P.O. Box 51, Sausalito, California 94966).

Note too that both the public affairs statement—and Elder Young's talk!—came well before any DNA attacks on the Book of Mormon. These are not, as some critics have complained, attempts to hide from DNA 'science.'

To read more:

• American Indians as Lamanites (short summary version)
• American Indians as Lamanites (longer version)

Ms. Robertson really has not done her homework!

In fact, Joseph Smith modified his ideas about Book of Mormon geography over the course of his life, indicating that he had no more information on the matter than the other members did.

And, despite her desire to speak for the Church, Ms. Robertson will have to be disappointed again when she learns that the Church has no official position on Book of Mormon geography, because it has not been revealed:

The First Presidency has often been asked to prepare some suggestive map illustrative of Nephite geography, but have never consented to do so. Nor are we acquainted with any of the Twelve Apostles who would undertake such a task. The reason is, that without further information they are not prepared even to suggest [a map]. The word of the Lord or the translation of other ancient records is required to clear up many points now so obscure.

—George Q. Cannon, "Editorial Thoughts: The Book of Mormon Geography," The Juvenile Instructor 25 no. 1 (1 January 1890)), 18–19.

Elder Anthony Ivins of the First Presidency would later confirm this stance:

There is a great deal of talk about the geography of the Book of Mormon. Where was the land of Zarahemla? Where was the City of Zarahemla? and other geographic matters. It does not make any difference to us. There has never been anything yet set forth that definitely settles that question. So the Church says we are just waiting until we discover the truth. All kinds of theories have been advanced. I have talked with at least half a dozen men that have found the very place where the City of Zarahemla stood, and notwithstanding the fact that they profess to be Book of Mormon students, they vary a thousand miles apart in the places they have located. We do not offer any definite solution. As you study the Book of Mormon keep these things in mind and do not make definite statements concerning things that have not been proven in advance to be true.

—Anthony W. Ivins, Conference Report (April 1929), 16.

And, the present-day Church repeated it in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

"The Church has not taken an official position with regard to location of geographical places [of the Book of Mormon]"

—John E. Clark, "Book of Mormon Geography," in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow, (New York, Macmillan Publishing, 1992), 1:178.

The First Presidency gets to determine official LDS teaching, not Ms. Robertson or the DVD producers.

To read more:

• Joseph Smith's adaptable views on geography
• Book of Mormon geography: New World

To read more:

• Links

ANSWER

To read more:

• LINKS HERE

ANSWER

To read more:

• LINKS HERE

A question that is definitely not asked by the video is what DNA can say about the beliefs of conservative Protestant Christians. This is not surprising, because it is not a pretty picture.

Fundamentalist Christian critics are happy to use DNA as a stick to beat the Book of Mormon, but do not tell their viewers that there is much stronger DNA evidence for concepts which fundamentalist Christian readers might not accept, such as:

• evolutionary change in species
• human descent from other primates

And, despite being inconsistent with DNA data, fundamentalist critics do not call on their congregations to abandon such literalistic Biblical concepts as:

• the earth being only 6,000 years old
• a Biblical Adam and Eve were the parents of all humanity only 4,000 years before Christ
• a world-wide, Noachian flood which exterminated all life except that which was in the Ark, occurred approximately 5,000 years ago

The critics are often hypocritical—they claim the Saints should abandon the Book of Mormon on flimsy, dubious science, and yet do not tell their audience that they should (by the same logic) abandon religious beliefs of their own that have much more DNA evidence against them.

To read more:

• Daniel C. Peterson, "Editor's Introduction," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): ix–lxii. off-site
• David G. Stewart, Jr., "DNA and the Book of Mormon," FARMS Review 18/1 (2006): 109–138. off-site wiki FAIR link

Genetics is a complex subject. Applying genetic data to the Book of Mormon also requires a thorough understanding of the Book of Mormon text. The video has not even attempted to provide viewers with the required background in the Book of Mormon or genetics needed to evaluate the genetics arguments for themselves.

Many authors with the needed training—including world-class experts in the use of forensic DNA—have dissected the DNA arguments offered by the critics, and found them lacking. The video's claims are wholly without scientific merit.

Rather, the DVD hopes that readers will simply trust them to be honest and get the science right. But, as we have seen, that trust would be gravely misplaced.

To read more:

• Extensive DNA resources
• FairMormon Topical Guide: DNA FairMormon link
  
• FARMS DNA papers