Difference between revisions of "Book of Mormon/Lamanites/Relationship to Amerindians"

m
 
m
Line 6: Line 6:
 
==Answer==
 
==Answer==
  
−
Newspaper accounts have sometimes dramatically recounted how Church members from various Amerindian groups (e.g. Navajo, Pacific Islanders) have expressed dismay at the idea that DNA has "proved" that they are not "really" descendants of Lehi as the Church has taught them.  Critics have also insisted that LDS prophets who have mentioned such ideas are "wrong."
+
===How have LDS members understood Amerindian origins?===
−
 
 
−
Regardless of the population model which one uses, or the geographical model, this claim is demonstrably false. 
 
−
 
 
−
The popularity of Dan Brown's novel, ''The Da Vinci Code'', led many Christians to consider the question of whether (as the novel postulates) Jesus Christ could have sired children and have living descendants today.
 
−
 
 
−
Non LDS-writer Steve Olson (an expert in population genetics{{ref|olson1}}) wrote:
 
−
 
 
−
:If anyone living today is descended from Jesus, so are most of us on the planet.  That absurd-sounding statement is an inevitable consequence of the strange and marvelous workings of human ancestry...Say you go back 120 generations, to about the year 1000 B.C. According to the results presented in our Nature paper, your ancestors then included everyone in the world who has descendants living today... If Jesus had children (a big if, of course) and if those children had children so that Jesus' lineage survived, then Jesus is today the ancestor of almost everyone living on Earth. True, Jesus lived two rather than three millenniums ago, but a person's descendants spread quickly from well-connected parts of the world like the Middle East...In addition to Jesus...we're also all descended from Julius Caesar, from Nefertiti, from Confucius...and from any other historical figure who left behind lines of descendants and lived earlier than a few thousand years ago. ''Genetic tests can't prove this, partly because current tests look at just a small fraction of our DNA.'' But if we're descended from someone, we have at least a chance—even if it's a very small chance—of having their DNA in our cells...People may like to think that they're descended from some ancient group while other people are not. But human ancestry doesn't work that way, since we all share the same ancestors just a few millenniums ago.{{ref|olson2}}
 
−
 
 
−
If Lehi existed, and if he left ''any'' descendants who survive to the modern day, then it is overwhelmingly likely—via the laws of population genetics—that virtually ''all'' modern Amerindians count Lehi among their direct ancestors.  (If someone in the Middle East at the time of Christ would be the ancestor of everyone currently alive, then Lehi's entry to the Americas 600 years prior to ''that'' time almost assures that he would be the direct ancestor of all Amerindians.)  In a similar fashion, it is even more certain that all Amerindians are descendants of "the Lamanites," regardless of whether one considers Lehi's group to have been "the whole show" genetically ''or'' a mere drop in a genetic sea.
 
−
 
 
−
And, by the same token, the chance of actually having "Lehi's DNA" or a DNA marker from Lehi is vanishingly small under most population models, unless (as in hemisphere model, type 3) Lehi is literally the ''only'' source of DNA for the continent, and even then not all descendants will have a given marker.
 
−
 
 
−
Another non-LDS author discussed the difficulties associated with using genetic tests to determine ancestory even a few generations back:
 
−
 
 
−
:Many amateur genealogists are interested in whether they might have a Cherokee ancestor, for example. And for some people, admixture tests can give a relatively accurate answer about Native-American ancestry. But other people, including Greeks and Ashkenazi Jews, may have "Native American affinity," according to the tests, even if they and their ancestors have never been to America. As far as anthropologists know, there were no lost tribes connecting Greeks, Jews, and ancient Americans. [LDS readers might pause here and wonder!] So, maybe this "Native American affinity" reflects the scattering of alleles by prehistoric Asian nomads to the ancestors of Greeks and Jews as well as to American Indians.{{ref|howafrican1}}
 
−
 
 
−
''Articles which address the phenomenon of how large groups (or the entire human population) can have fairly recent common ancestors include:''
 
  
−
* {{FR-18-1-6}} <!-- Butler - Addressing-->
+
In their more candid moments, the ex-Mormon critics admit that their criticisms revolve around a key assumption.  Simon Southerton writes of how some Mormons have argued that 
−
* {{FR-15-2-8}} <!-- Roper - Swimming-->
 
−
* {{FR-15-2-9}} <!--Stubbs - Elusive Israel-->
 
  
−
===So why does Lamanite lineage matter at all?===
+
:Bottleneck effect, genetic drift, Hardy-Weinberg violations and other technical problems would prevent us from detecting Israelite genes [in Amerindians].{{ref|southerton1}}
  
−
One might ask, however, that if this is true, what is the point of identifying anyone as a "Lamanite," since much or all of the current population might be able to claim Lehi as an ancestor?  President Spencer W. Kimball is known as a powerful advocate for the Native Americans, on the basis of their status as "Lamanites." He said:
+
This is a technical way of explaining a relatively simple fact: if a small group is placed in contact with a larger group and allowed to intermarry, it becomes harder to detect the small group’s “genetic signature.”  
  
−
:we would say that many, many of us are Lamanites, ''which includes the Indians'' and the mixtures of Indians with other races. ''Even I have been adopted into some of the Indian tribes'' and have been given Indian names...
+
It is as if one placed a teaspoon of red dye in an Olympic swimming pool, mixed well, and then withdrew a sample.  Southerton and his fellow critics are in the position of someone who complains loudly because the sampled water does not seem to be “red”!
  
−
:The term Lamanite includes all Indians and Indian mixtures…It is a large group of great people.  The Church has always maintained a tremendous interest and concern for the Indian people and all of the Lamanites.{{ref|kimball1}}
+
Southerton then goes on to say:
  
−
Thus, for President Kimball, the “Lamanites” and “Indians” are made up of both genetic descendants and those who have been adopted into the tribes, or added through “mixtures…with other races.” This goes a long way toward explaining why the critics' DNA attack is fundamentally misdirected&mdash;the participants are talking past each other. Church leaders are quite happy, generally, to extend “Lamanite” status to any Amerindian (or even a white of European descent like President Kimball) because gospel promises are the focus of their attention.  The Church is not and has not been particularly worried about someone’s Lamanite ''genes'', but rather about their eligibility for the ''promises'' made to the Lamanites as members of the covenant people.  Thus, President Kimball is quite happy to have all American Aborigines considered Lamanites, since he considers them all eligible for these promises—he is also quite pleased and proud to be considered a “Lamanite” not because of genes but because of covenant blessings.
+
:I agree entirely. [!] In 600 BC there were probably several million American Indians living in the Americas. If a small group of Israelites entered such a massive native population it would be very, very hard to detect their genes 200, 2000 or even 20,000 years later. But does such a scenario fit with what the Book of Mormon plainly states or what the prophets have taught for 175 years? Short answer. No! Long answer. Nooo!{[ref|southerton2}}
  
−
This idea is familiar to Latter-day Saints, whose patriarchal blessings indicate a lineage in one of the houses of Israel.  Genetically, it is probable that ''all'' people alive today share ''all'' of the sons of Jacob as genetic ancestors.  Yet, the blessings of the gospel come to people because of the covenants, and thus one ancestor is focused on as the conduit for those covenant blessings.  Having lineage declared from the tribe of Ephraim, for example, does not mean that a member of the Church has no genetic ancestry from another tribe.  It means simply that the member's blessings, promises, covenants, and duties are being focused upon the Ephraimite lineage.
+
This is really quite astonishing.  Southerton has obliged us by shooting himself in the foot.  He admits that there are many genetic objections to his attack, unless we accept that the American Indians are only descendants of Lehi and Mulek.   
  
−
Lamanite is an inclusive, not exclusive, term in the Church.  President Kimball even extends the label of “Lamanites” beyond “the Indian people,” and no wonder, since his goal is to teach that
+
Contrary to Southerton’s assertion, the short answer is that he is either ignorant of the facts, or being deceptive.   
  
−
:There are no blessings, of all the imaginable ones, to which you are not entitled&mdash;you, the Lamanites&mdash;when you are righteous.{{ref|kimball2}}
+
For those who are interested, we turn to the long answer.
  
−
We should perhaps be cautious, then, in assuming (as the critics do) that gospel statements about Lamanite ancestry are mostly about genetics, when they are most likely primarily about covenant duties and promises.
+
Remember, Southerton claims that we must accept his version, because
  
−
''Articles which discuss the nature of "Nephite" and "Lamanite" in the Book of Mormon:''
+
# the Book of Mormon ‘plainly’ teaches it; and
−
* {{JBMS-12-1-5}}<!--Meldrum and Stephens - Who Are-->{{NB}}
+
# “the prophets” have taught this doctrine (and no other, we must presume) for 175 years.
−
* {{JBMS-12-1-2}} <!-- Sorenson and Roper - before dna}}
 
  
−
===How have LDS members understood Amerindian origins?===
+
So, by Southerton’s own admission, his model is in fatal trouble if a “whole empty hemisphere” model is not taught by both the Book of Mormon and the prophets.That Southerton would make such a claim, and put his theory on such shaky ground, illustrates how poorly he understands the Book of Mormon and writing about it that has gone on for decades prior to Watson and Crick's discovery of the double helix.
  
 
====Initial ideas====
 
====Initial ideas====
Line 66: Line 45:
 
* LeGrand Richards [Apostle] 1954: The dark-skinned people who occupied this land of America from that time on were called "Lamanites," who are the people known generally as the American Indians, all of whom are of the house of Israel.{{ref|richards1}}
 
* LeGrand Richards [Apostle] 1954: The dark-skinned people who occupied this land of America from that time on were called "Lamanites," who are the people known generally as the American Indians, all of whom are of the house of Israel.{{ref|richards1}}
  
−
===A reevalution===
+
====A reevalution====
  
 
However, contrary to the claims of critics who attempt to use DNA evidence to discredit the Book of Mormon, some readers and leaders reconsidered these ideas.
 
However, contrary to the claims of critics who attempt to use DNA evidence to discredit the Book of Mormon, some readers and leaders reconsidered these ideas.
Line 82: Line 61:
 
In April 1929, President Anthony W. Ivins [Counselor in First Presidency] said in General Conference:
 
In April 1929, President Anthony W. Ivins [Counselor in First Presidency] said in General Conference:
  
−
:We must be careful in the conclusions that we reach. The Book of Mormon teaches the history of three distinct peoples, or two peoples and three different colonies of people, who came from the old world to this continent. ''It does not tell us that there was no one here before them. It does not tell us that people did not come after. And so if discoveries are made which suggest differences in race origins, it can very easily be accounted for, and reasonably, for we do believe that other people came to this continent.''{{ref|ivans1}}
+
:We must be careful in the conclusions that we reach. The Book of Mormon teaches the history of three distinct peoples, or two peoples and three different colonies of people, who came from the old world to this continent. ''It does not tell us that there was no one here before them. It does not tell us that people did not come after. And so if discoveries are made which suggest differences in race origins, it can very easily be accounted for, and reasonably, for we do believe that other people came to this continent.''{{ref|ivins1}}
 +
 
 +
A Church study guide of 1938 was even more definitive:
 +
 
 +
:Indian ancestry, at least in part, is attributed by the Nephite record to the Lamanites. However, the Book of Mormon deals ''only with the history and expansion of three small colonies which came to America and it does not deny or disprove the possibility of other immigrations'', which probably would be unknown to its writers. ''Jewish origin may represent only a part of the total ancestry of the American Indian today.{{ref|berrett1}}
 +
 
 +
And, in 1940, members with the critics' attitudes were cautioned:
 +
 
 +
:There is a tendency to use the Book of Mormon as a complete history of all pre-Columbian peoples. The book does not claim to be such an history, and we distort its spiritual message when we use it for such a purpose. ''The book does not give an history of all peoples who came to America before Columbus.''  There may have been other people who came here, by other routes and means, of which we have no written record. If historians wish to discuss information which the Book of Mormon does not contain but which is related to it, then we should grant them that freedom. ''We should avoid the claim that we are familiar with all the peoples who have lived on American soil when we discuss the Book of Mormon''. . . There is safety in using the book in the spirit in which it was written. Our use of poorly constructed inferences may draw us far away from the truth. In our approach to the study of the Book of Mormon let us guard against drawing historical conclusions which the book does not warrant.{{ref|west1}}
 +
 
 +
Elder Dallin H. Oaks [Apostle] noted that he had been taught this idea in the 1950s at BYU:
 +
 
 +
:Here [at BYU] I was introduced to the idea that the Book of Mormon is not a history of all of the people who have lived on the continents of North and South America in all ages of the earth. Up to that time, I had assumed that it was. If that were the claim of the Book of Mormon, any piece of historical, archaeological, or linguistic evidence to the contrary would weigh in against the Book of Mormon, and those who rely exclusively on scholarship would have a promising position to argue.
 +
 
 +
:In contrast, if the Book of Mormon only purports to be an account of a few peoples who inhabited a portion of the Americas during a few millennia in the past, the burden of argument changes drastically. It is no longer a question of all versus none; it is a question of some versus none. In other words, in the circumstance I describe, the opponents of historicity must prove that the Book of Mormon has no historical validity for any peoples who lived in the Americas in a particular time frame, a notoriously difficult exercise.{{ref|oaks1}}
 +
 
 +
In 1957, Elder Richard L. Evans [Apostle] prepared material for a secular audience, and described the Book of Mormon as
 +
 
 +
:part of a record, both sacred and secular, of prophets and peoples who (''with supplementary groups'') were among the ancestors of the American 'Indians'{{ref|evans1}}
 +
 
 +
This article was republished twice (in 1963 and 1975) and the latter publication was reapproved for publication by the First Presidency.{{ref|fn1}}
 +
 
 +
It is astonishing that critics do not realize that this approval puts a fairly “official” stamp of approval on this perspective&mdash;at the very least, it is hardly out of the ‘mainstream’ of Church thought to think that others besides Israelites make up modern Amerindians, and this perspective existed long before the DNA issue came to the fore.
 +
 
 +
More recently, the ''Ensign'' published an article from John Sorenson, one of the most prominent advocates of the presence of other non-Israelite peoples in the Americas:
 +
 
 +
:Archaeological evidence from all New World areas where the early Nephites and Lamanites could have lived makes clear that peoples who descended from the Jaredite era also lived during the time of Lehi’s descendants. Given Laman and Lemuel’s ambition to rule, perhaps they or their descendants ruled over and absorbed such “natives.” Nephite record keepers perhaps did not know the details of that process, but that is the best explanation that I know of for the remarkable growth in the number of Lamanites.
 +
 
 +
:The case of the numerous Amulonites [in Alma 43:13] can be explained on similar grounds—taking control over a resident population.{{ref|sorenson1}}
 +
 
 +
And, when asked about the Church’s '''official position''' on this matter by a writer, a Church spokesman 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.{{ref|official1}}
  
 +
So, apostles and seventies have made statements which differ from Southerton’s understanding of the matter, taught them in General Conference, and the Church has published such perspectives in their magazines, study guides, and manuals.  The Church’s university has passed them on to their students for generations.  The Church’s official spokespeople disclaim the interpretation which Southerton insists we must hold.  Why must we?  Well, because Southerton’s DNA theory “disproving” the Book of Mormon is in deep trouble otherwise, as he’s already admitted!
 
==Endnotes==
 
==Endnotes==
  
Line 91: Line 103:
 
#{{note|kimball1}} {{Ensign1|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=Of Royal Blood|date=July 1971|start=7}} {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1971.htm/ensign%20july%201971.htm/of%20royal%20blood.htm}}
 
#{{note|kimball1}} {{Ensign1|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=Of Royal Blood|date=July 1971|start=7}} {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1971.htm/ensign%20july%201971.htm/of%20royal%20blood.htm}}
 
#{{note|kimball2}} {{Ensign1|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=Of Royal Blood|date=July 1971|start=10}} {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1971.htm/ensign%20july%201971.htm/of%20royal%20blood.htm}}
 
#{{note|kimball2}} {{Ensign1|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=Of Royal Blood|date=July 1971|start=10}} {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1971.htm/ensign%20july%201971.htm/of%20royal%20blood.htm}}
 +
#{{note|southerton1}}Simon Southerton, e-mail, “Answering the DNA apologetics,” 15 February 2005, 18h42 (copy in author’s possession).
 +
#{{note|southerton2}}''Ibid''.
 
#{{note|lms1}}Lucy Mack Smith, ''Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and His Progenitors for Many Generations'' (Liverpool, England, 1853), 152.
 
#{{note|lms1}}Lucy Mack Smith, ''Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and His Progenitors for Many Generations'' (Liverpool, England, 1853), 152.
 
#{{note|wwphelps1}}{{EMS1 | author=W. W. Phelps | article=The Book of Mormon|date=January 1833|start=?}}
 
#{{note|wwphelps1}}{{EMS1 | author=W. W. Phelps | article=The Book of Mormon|date=January 1833|start=?}}
Line 99: Line 113:
 
#{{note|sojdahl1}}{{IE1|author=Janne M. Sjodahl|article=Suggested Key To Book of Mormon Geography|vol=30|num=11|date=September 1927|start=?}}
 
#{{note|sojdahl1}}{{IE1|author=Janne M. Sjodahl|article=Suggested Key To Book of Mormon Geography|vol=30|num=11|date=September 1927|start=?}}
 
#{{note|ivins1}} {{CR1|author=Anthony W. Ivins|date=April 1929|start=15, italics added}}
 
#{{note|ivins1}} {{CR1|author=Anthony W. Ivins|date=April 1929|start=15, italics added}}
 +
#{{note|berrett1}} William E. Berrett, Milton R. Hunter, Roy A. Welker, and H. Alvah Fitzgerald, ''A Guide to the Study of the Book of Mormon'' (Salt Lake City: LDS Department of Education, 1938), 47&ndash;48, italics added.
 +
# {{note|west1}} Roy A. West, ''An Introduction to the Book of Mormon: A Religious-Literary Study'' (Salt Lake City: LDS Department of Education, 1940), 11, italics added.
 +
# {{note|oaks1}} Dallin H. Oaks, "The Historicity of the Book of Mormon," (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1994): 2&ndash;3; republished in Dallin H. Oaks, "The Historicity of the Book of Mormon," in ''Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures'', edited by Paul Y. Hoskisson (Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center, 2001), 238&ndash;239.
 +
# {{note|evans1}} Richard L. Evans, "What Is a 'Mormon'?" in ''Religions of America'', edited by Leo Rosten (London: Heinemann, 1957), 94, italics added; reprinted as ''Religions of America: Ferment and Faith in an Age of Crisis: A New Guide and Almanac'' (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1975). {{nl}}
 +
#{{note|fn1}}The quote and this observation are from {{FR-15-2-7}}
 +
#{{note|sorenson1}} {{ensign1|author=John L. Sorenson|article=I Have a Question|date=September 1992|start=27, italics added}}{{nl}}
 +
#{{note|official1}} 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).
 
#
 
#
 
==Further reading==
 
==Further reading==

Revision as of 22:14, 14 October 2006

This page is based on an answer to a question submitted to the FAIR web site, or a frequently asked question.

Question

Are all Amerindians descendants of Lehi?

Answer

How have LDS members understood Amerindian origins?

In their more candid moments, the ex-Mormon critics admit that their criticisms revolve around a key assumption. Simon Southerton writes of how some Mormons have argued that

Bottleneck effect, genetic drift, Hardy-Weinberg violations and other technical problems would prevent us from detecting Israelite genes [in Amerindians].[1]

This is a technical way of explaining a relatively simple fact: if a small group is placed in contact with a larger group and allowed to intermarry, it becomes harder to detect the small group’s “genetic signature.”

It is as if one placed a teaspoon of red dye in an Olympic swimming pool, mixed well, and then withdrew a sample. Southerton and his fellow critics are in the position of someone who complains loudly because the sampled water does not seem to be “red”!

Southerton then goes on to say:

I agree entirely. [!] In 600 BC there were probably several million American Indians living in the Americas. If a small group of Israelites entered such a massive native population it would be very, very hard to detect their genes 200, 2000 or even 20,000 years later. But does such a scenario fit with what the Book of Mormon plainly states or what the prophets have taught for 175 years? Short answer. No! Long answer. Nooo!{[ref|southerton2}}

This is really quite astonishing. Southerton has obliged us by shooting himself in the foot. He admits that there are many genetic objections to his attack, unless we accept that the American Indians are only descendants of Lehi and Mulek.

Contrary to Southerton’s assertion, the short answer is that he is either ignorant of the facts, or being deceptive.

For those who are interested, we turn to the long answer.

Remember, Southerton claims that we must accept his version, because

  1. the Book of Mormon ‘plainly’ teaches it; and
  2. “the prophets” have taught this doctrine (and no other, we must presume) for 175 years.

So, by Southerton’s own admission, his model is in fatal trouble if a “whole empty hemisphere” model is not taught by both the Book of Mormon and the prophets.That Southerton would make such a claim, and put his theory on such shaky ground, illustrates how poorly he understands the Book of Mormon and writing about it that has gone on for decades prior to Watson and Crick's discovery of the double helix.

Initial ideas

It is not surprising that some Church members concluded that all Amerindians were descendants of Lehi/Mulek. In fact, this was the initial conclusion drawn by many contemporaries of Joseph Smith. For example:

  • Lucy Mack Smith describing the Book of Mormon: "a history of the origin of the Indians."[2]
  • WW Phelps, 1833: "That wonderful conjecture, which left blank as to the origin . . . of the American Indians, was done away by the Book of Mormon…"[3]
  • Parley P. Pratt [apostle], 1837: "reveals the origin of the American Indians, which was before a mystery." [4]
  • Orson Pratt [apostle], 1875: I refer to the American Indians, all remnants of Joseph and belonging to the house of Israel. [5]

And, many later members and leaders continued to emphasize this perspective (though, as discussed above, if Lehi had any descendants, then all present Amerindians are his descendants):

  • LeGrand Richards [Apostle] 1954: The dark-skinned people who occupied this land of America from that time on were called "Lamanites," who are the people known generally as the American Indians, all of whom are of the house of Israel.[6]

A reevalution

However, contrary to the claims of critics who attempt to use DNA evidence to discredit the Book of Mormon, some readers and leaders reconsidered these ideas.

Taught Elder Levi Edgar Young [First Council of the Seventy] in 1928 general conference:

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…[7]

A 1927 Book of Mormon study guide noted that:

All Indians Are Not the Descendants of Lehi …Students of the Book of Mormon should be cautioned against the error of supposing that all the American Indians are the descendants of Lehi, Mulek, and their companions, and that their languages and dialects, their social organizations, religious conceptions and practices, traditions, etc., are all traceable to those Hebrew sources.
Because the Jaredite record is very brief we are apt to forget that it embraces many centuries—how many, we have no means of ascertaining—and that it gives an epitome principally of the history of Moron, where the Jaredites first established themselves. It stands to reason that the Jaredites gradually settled in favorable localities all over the American continents, and that both Nephites and Lamanites came in contact with them, and that an amalgamation took place everywhere as in the case of the Nephites and Mulekites in Zarahemla. If so, the Jaredite culture must have become a factor in the development of the institutions and languages of the country. But the Jaredites came from some center of population in Asia…[8]

In April 1929, President Anthony W. Ivins [Counselor in First Presidency] said in General Conference:

We must be careful in the conclusions that we reach. The Book of Mormon teaches the history of three distinct peoples, or two peoples and three different colonies of people, who came from the old world to this continent. It does not tell us that there was no one here before them. It does not tell us that people did not come after. And so if discoveries are made which suggest differences in race origins, it can very easily be accounted for, and reasonably, for we do believe that other people came to this continent.[9]

A Church study guide of 1938 was even more definitive:

Indian ancestry, at least in part, is attributed by the Nephite record to the Lamanites. However, the Book of Mormon deals only with the history and expansion of three small colonies which came to America and it does not deny or disprove the possibility of other immigrations, which probably would be unknown to its writers. Jewish origin may represent only a part of the total ancestry of the American Indian today.[10]

And, in 1940, members with the critics' attitudes were cautioned:

There is a tendency to use the Book of Mormon as a complete history of all pre-Columbian peoples. The book does not claim to be such an history, and we distort its spiritual message when we use it for such a purpose. The book does not give an history of all peoples who came to America before Columbus. There may have been other people who came here, by other routes and means, of which we have no written record. If historians wish to discuss information which the Book of Mormon does not contain but which is related to it, then we should grant them that freedom. We should avoid the claim that we are familiar with all the peoples who have lived on American soil when we discuss the Book of Mormon. . . There is safety in using the book in the spirit in which it was written. Our use of poorly constructed inferences may draw us far away from the truth. In our approach to the study of the Book of Mormon let us guard against drawing historical conclusions which the book does not warrant.[11]

Elder Dallin H. Oaks [Apostle] noted that he had been taught this idea in the 1950s at BYU:

Here [at BYU] I was introduced to the idea that the Book of Mormon is not a history of all of the people who have lived on the continents of North and South America in all ages of the earth. Up to that time, I had assumed that it was. If that were the claim of the Book of Mormon, any piece of historical, archaeological, or linguistic evidence to the contrary would weigh in against the Book of Mormon, and those who rely exclusively on scholarship would have a promising position to argue.
In contrast, if the Book of Mormon only purports to be an account of a few peoples who inhabited a portion of the Americas during a few millennia in the past, the burden of argument changes drastically. It is no longer a question of all versus none; it is a question of some versus none. In other words, in the circumstance I describe, the opponents of historicity must prove that the Book of Mormon has no historical validity for any peoples who lived in the Americas in a particular time frame, a notoriously difficult exercise.[12]

In 1957, Elder Richard L. Evans [Apostle] prepared material for a secular audience, and described the Book of Mormon as

part of a record, both sacred and secular, of prophets and peoples who (with supplementary groups) were among the ancestors of the American 'Indians'[13]

This article was republished twice (in 1963 and 1975) and the latter publication was reapproved for publication by the First Presidency.[14]

It is astonishing that critics do not realize that this approval puts a fairly “official” stamp of approval on this perspective—at the very least, it is hardly out of the ‘mainstream’ of Church thought to think that others besides Israelites make up modern Amerindians, and this perspective existed long before the DNA issue came to the fore.

More recently, the Ensign published an article from John Sorenson, one of the most prominent advocates of the presence of other non-Israelite peoples in the Americas:

Archaeological evidence from all New World areas where the early Nephites and Lamanites could have lived makes clear that peoples who descended from the Jaredite era also lived during the time of Lehi’s descendants. Given Laman and Lemuel’s ambition to rule, perhaps they or their descendants ruled over and absorbed such “natives.” Nephite record keepers perhaps did not know the details of that process, but that is the best explanation that I know of for the remarkable growth in the number of Lamanites.
The case of the numerous Amulonites [in Alma 43:13] can be explained on similar grounds—taking control over a resident population.[15]

And, when asked about the Church’s official position on this matter by a writer, a Church spokesman 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.[16]

So, apostles and seventies have made statements which differ from Southerton’s understanding of the matter, taught them in General Conference, and the Church has published such perspectives in their magazines, study guides, and manuals. The Church’s university has passed them on to their students for generations. The Church’s official spokespeople disclaim the interpretation which Southerton insists we must hold. Why must we? Well, because Southerton’s DNA theory “disproving” the Book of Mormon is in deep trouble otherwise, as he’s already admitted!

Endnotes

  1. [note]  Olson is co-author of a letter to Nature, in which he discusses these ideas in a more technical format. See Douglas L. T. Rohde, Steve Olson, and Joseph T. Chang, "Modelling the recent common ancestry of all living humans," 431 Nature (30 September 2004): 562–566. off-site Olson provides a "semi-technical" description of his findings here.
  2. [note]  Steve Olson, "Why We're All Jesus' Children," slate.com (15 March 2006). Last accessed 12 October 2006 (emphasis added). off-site
  3. [note]  John Hawks, "How African Are You? What genealogical testing can't tell you," slate.com (15 March 2006), accessed 12 October 2006. off-site
  4. [note]  Spencer W. Kimball, "Of Royal Blood," Ensign (July 1971): 7. off-site
  5. [note]  Spencer W. Kimball, "Of Royal Blood," Ensign (July 1971): 10. off-site
  6. [note] Simon Southerton, e-mail, “Answering the DNA apologetics,” 15 February 2005, 18h42 (copy in author’s possession).
  7. [note] Ibid.
  8. [note] Lucy Mack Smith, Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and His Progenitors for Many Generations (Liverpool, England, 1853), 152.
  9. [note] W. W. Phelps, "The Book of Mormon," Evening and Morning Star (January 1833), ?. off-siteGospeLink
  10. [note] Parley P. Pratt, A Voice of Warning and Instruction to All People, etc. (New York: W. Sandford, 1837), 135.
  11. [note] Orson Pratt, "?," Journal of Discourses, reported by David W. Evans, (7 February 1875), Vol. 17 (London: Latter-day Saint's Book Depot, 1875), 299.off-site (needs URL / links)
  12. [note]  LeGrand Richards, Israel! Do You Know? (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1954), 37. (needs URL / links)
  13. [note]  Levi Edgar Young, Conference Report (October 1928), 103–106, italics added.
  14. [note] Janne M. Sjodahl, "Suggested Key To Book of Mormon Geography," Improvement Era 30 no. 11 (September 1927), ?.
  15. [note]  Anthony W. Ivins, Conference Report (April 1929), 15, italics added.
  16. [note]  William E. Berrett, Milton R. Hunter, Roy A. Welker, and H. Alvah Fitzgerald, A Guide to the Study of the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: LDS Department of Education, 1938), 47–48, italics added.
  17. [note]  Roy A. West, An Introduction to the Book of Mormon: A Religious-Literary Study (Salt Lake City: LDS Department of Education, 1940), 11, italics added.
  18. [note]  Dallin H. Oaks, "The Historicity of the Book of Mormon," (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1994): 2–3; republished in Dallin H. Oaks, "The Historicity of the Book of Mormon," in Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, edited by Paul Y. Hoskisson (Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center, 2001), 238–239.
  19. [note]  Richard L. Evans, "What Is a 'Mormon'?" in Religions of America, edited by Leo Rosten (London: Heinemann, 1957), 94, italics added; reprinted as Religions of America: Ferment and Faith in an Age of Crisis: A New Guide and Almanac (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1975).  (needs URL / links)
  20. [note] The quote and this observation are from Matthew Roper, "Nephi's Neighbors: Book of Mormon Peoples and Pre-Columbian Populations," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): 91–128. off-site
  21. [note]  John L. Sorenson, "I Have a Question," Ensign (September 1992): 27, italics added. (needs URL / links)
  22. [note]  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).

Further reading

FAIR wiki articles

Book of Mormon/Lamanites/Relationship to Amerindians


DNA and the Book of Mormon


Jump to details:


FAIR web site

DNA FairMormon articles on-line
  • David Stewart, "DNA and the Book of Mormon" FAIR link
  • Allen Wyatt, "Motivation, Behavior, and Dissention" (background on Thomas Murphy's anti-Mormon activity). FAIR link

External links

DNA on-line articles
  • John M. Butler, "A Few Thoughts From a Believing DNA Scientist," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003). [36–37] link
  • John M. Butler, "Addressing Questions surrounding the Book of Mormon and DNA Research," FARMS Review 18/1 (2006): 101–108. off-site wiki
  • Glen M. Cooper, "Appendix, On Aping Aristotle: Modern-day Simplicios," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): lxiii–lxiii. off-site
  • Brant Gradner, "This Idea: The "This Land" Series and the U.S.-Centric Reading of the Book of Mormon (A review of "This Land: Zarahemla and the Nephite Nation; This Land: Only One Cumorah!; and This Land: They Came from the East" by: Edwin G. Goble and Wayne N. May; Wayne N. May; and Wayne N. May)," FARMS Review 20/2 (2008): 141–162. off-site wiki
  • David A. McClellan, "Detecting Lehi's Genetic Signature: Possible, Probable, or Not?," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): 35–90. off-site
  • D. Jeffrey Meldrum and Trent D. Stephens, "Who Are the Children of Lehi?," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003). [38–51] link
  • Ryan Parr, "Missing the Boat to Ancient America . . . Just Plain Missing the Boat (Review of: Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church)," FARMS Review 17/1 (2005): 83–106. off-site
  • Ugo A. Perego, "The Book of Mormon and the Origin of Native Americans from a Maternally Inherited DNA Standpoint," FARMS Review 22/1 (2010): 191–227. off-site wiki
  • Daniel C. Peterson, "Editor's Introduction," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): ix–lxii. off-site
  • Daniel C. Peterson, "Prolegomena to the DNA Articles," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): 25–34. off-site
  • Matthew Roper, "Nephi's Neighbors: Book of Mormon Peoples and Pre-Columbian Populations," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): 91–128. off-site
  • Matthew Roper, "Swimming the Gene Pool: Israelite Kinship Relations, Genes, and Genealogy," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): 129–164. off-site
  • James E. Smith, "Nephi's Descendants? Historical Demography and the Book of Mormon (Review of Multiply Exceedingly: Book of Mormon Population Sizes by John C. Kunich)," FARMS Review of Books 6/1 (1994): 255–296. off-site
  • John L. Sorenson, "The Problematic Role of DNA Testing in Unraveling Human History," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 9/2 (2000). [66–74] link
  • Gregory L. Smith, "Often in Error, Seldom in Doubt: Rod Meldrum and Book of Mormon DNA (A review of "Rediscovering the Book of Mormon Remnant through DNA" by: Rod L. Meldrum)," FARMS Review 22/1 (2010): 17–161. off-site wiki
  • John L. Sorenson and Matthew Roper, "Before DNA," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003). [6–23] link
  • David G. Stewart, Jr., "DNA and the Book of Mormon," FARMS Review 18/1 (2006): 109–138. off-site wiki FAIR link
  • David Stewart, Jr., "DNA and the Book of Mormon Rebuttal to Signature Books," cumorah.com off-site
  • John A. Tvedtnes, "Reinventing the Book of Mormon (Review of: “Reinventing Lamanite Identity,” Sunstone, March 2004, 20–25)," FARMS Review 16/2 (2004): 91–106. off-site
  • Michael F. Whiting, "DNA and the Book of Mormon: A Phylogenetic Perspective," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/1 (2003). [24–35] link

Printed material

DNA printed materials
  • Blake T. Ostler, "Assessing the Logical Structure of DNA Arguments Against the Book of Mormon," Sunstone no. (Issue #135) (December 2004), 70–72. off-site
  • Blake T. Ostler, "DNA Strands in the Book of Mormon," Sunstone no. (Issue #137) (May 2005), x–y. off-site
  • Blake T. Ostler, "Reply to David A. Anderson (letter to the editor)," Sunstone no. (Issue #138) (September 2005), 8–10. off-site PDF link
Retrieved from "https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/index.php?title=Book_of_Mormon/Lamanites/Relationship_to_Amerindians&oldid=7202"