This is the first in a series of posts wherein I explain reasons why I do not believe in the Book of Mormon. Please read the introduction post (link) for an explanation.
Recent technological advances have given us very powerful tools for determining ancestry through genetic markers. I will not go into depth about these techniques at this time (mainly because I only have a cursory knowledge myself). Suffice it to say that there is no genetic evidence that the ancestors of Native Americans were Israelite, not a bit.
On the contrary, there is voluminous genetic evidence that the original inhabitants of America were of East Asian descent. One need only compare the appearance of East Asians with that of Native Americans; the similarity is undeniable. But one need not trust their eyes, the genetic record tells the same story. This fits in very well with the long defended argument that the first human inhabitants of America came by way of a land bridge across the Bering Strait.
Another interesting thing to note regarding Book of Mormon genetics is the limited amount of diversity we should expect to see. Mitochondrial DNA is passed down directly from one's mother. There is no cross-over during meiosis, so it makes for a very useful tool in determining ancestry. Nephi and company only had two unique sets of Mitochondrial DNA (Sariah, Ishmael's wife). This should make spotting these DNA markers very easy, as they would have only diverged by mutations over the past 2,600 years. In truth, the DNA shows much higher genetic drift than could occur in the above situation.
There is only one reasonable argument, that I have heard, to combat this genetic issue. If Nephi and family came to an already populated American continent, their genetic markers could have been covered up by the genetic markers of the larger population already here. The big problem with this argument is that one would need to explain what people are doing crossing the Bering Strait millenia prior to the Fall of Adam. We also have to wonder why the Book of Mormon authors make special mention of the Mulekites and finding the extinct Jaredite nation, but fail to mention an even larger civilization all around them.
Tragedy and Kitsch
5 hours ago
16 comments:
The Mulekites were that larger population.
I have a friend who works in Genetics. I am not sure his stance on this topic...but if you wanted to learn more about genetic markers and parent testing- he would be intresting to chat with.
There are a few problems with viewing the Mulekites as the larger population whose DNA consumed and overshadowed that of the Nephites.
Most importantly, Mulek was the son of Zedekiah, and came from Jerusalem himself. Therfore, Mulek was Jewish. The scriptures do say that Mulek came with "as many as would hearken unto the voice of the Lord." We would expect these to be of similar genetic make-up as Nephi and family.
I suppose it is possible that Mulek brought with him a bunch of Mongoloids, but I can't imagine what a bunch of East Asians would have been doing in ancient Jerusalem.
One other issue is that the population would have to be much larger than the Nephite population in order to completely cover any trace of Israelite descent. Studies have actually been done to show how much larger the engulfing population needs to be. If you look it up, let me know. I doubt that a group who left after the Nephites would have reached this level of population.
This does adequately silence my claim that mitochondrial DNA of American Indians would have only derived from two genomes. That said, unless Mulek brought over a massive number of women (is possible), we would still only have a limited number of genomes from which to derive a large population after only 2,600 years.
Redsamn,
Thank you for the offer to speak to your friend about genetics. You should ask him what his opinion of the above, and let me know. Or, have him come post his own opinion. I'd be very interested to hear it.
I was responding to your "(mainly because I only have a cursory knowledge myself)." Knowing you love to learn I was mearly suggesting my introduction to a friend you might be able to talk and discuss genetics. I'll ask him what he thinks, but I'm not sure he's followed this specific strain of study.
Sorry for the slow response, but I was just referring to the limited mother issue by my first comment.
As for the DNA and genetic markers issue, for any one interested, there is a collection of responses to such criticism here.
Kalon,
I would be interested to know if you actually read any of the articles to which you linked or if you simply noticed that the church has explanations and assumed they must be valid. I have read many of the responses that the church has provided. I have found little more than weak excuses.
Therein lies the problem with apologetics. Rarely does it amount to anything more than just that, apologies. I can come up with an excuse for anything, absolutely anything. But we need to be honest with ourselves, by looking at the evidence and following where it leads, rather than trying to invent evidence to where we want it to lead.
Lastly, I have a question for you. Try to disconnect yourself emotionally from the Book of Mormon. Forget for a moment that you believe it to be true. If you were an independent, unbiased observer, would the evidence be sufficient to cause you to accept the Book of Mormon as true? Or, like all non-Mormon scholars, would you consider the Book of Mormon to be mere contrivance? I'd be interested to hear your honest answer to that question.
One other thought regarding apologetics. One need take care when reading the words of a group with a stated agenda. It is the agenda of the church and FARMS and FAIR to prove the Book of Mormon and the church true. That does not mean we should disregard their words (as some recommend). But the same level of care and discrimination should be taken with Mormon apologetics as one would take with any overtly biased material.
Note that this does not just apply to church sources. We should be wary of anyone, for or against, with a strongly stated agenda. If we are reading an article by a person who has openly stated that they hate the Mormon church, we should be very wary and careful to make sure that they aren't twisting the facts.
That is the beauty of the genetics issue. The majority of the relevant research has been done by people who probably don't even know about the Book of Mormon. Native American DNA research is not performed for the purpose of disproving the Book of Mormon; it is done to explore the origins of American indigenous people. It would be hard to ascribe nefarious intentions to such researchers.
As I have read a number of the articles provided by Kalon, I feel compelled to express my frustration regarding a recurring theme. Over and over people claim that this bit of evidence or that fact fails to prove that the Book of Mormon is false. To this I respond, NO FREAKING DUH!!
It is impossible to prove a negative. I challenge you to prove to me that aliens aren't the primary ancestors of the Native Americans. You can't do it. I can rebuff any argument you give. I can supply explanations that are possible, even though they might be ridiculously unlikely.
So does that mean we should simply accept every hypothesis that cannot be disproven? Should we accept the above "alien hypothesis"? Clearly we should not. Instead, we look for evidence and follow the evidence. Is there any credible DNA or archeological evidence whatsoever that the Book of Mormon is a true history of ancient Americans? No, there is not. That does not disprove the Book of Mormon, but it does give good reason to not believe it.
I would be interested to know if you actually read any of the articles to which you linked or if you simply noticed that the church has explanations and assumed they must be valid.
Yes, I read through one and skimmed another. I also read through the related wekipedia article and a few of the cited references.
Over and over people claim that this bit of evidence or that fact fails to prove that the Book of Mormon is false.
It should also be taken into consideration that most of those articles are in response to people that have made the claim that it in fact does disprove the Book of Mormon.
Additionally the articles aren't simple saying that it doesn't disprove because you can't disprove. They are saying that it doesn't discredit the Book of Mormon either.
Try to disconnect yourself emotionally from the Book of Mormon.
I kind of feel like asking you the same thing. It seems that any of my comments, no matter how small or in attempted objectivity, seem to set you off.
If I were totally disconnected with belief in the Book of Mormon as truth I think my reasoning would go something like this.
The data developed by these mainstream scientists tell us that the Native Americans have very distinctive DNA markers, and that some of them are most similar, among old world populations, to the DNA of people anciently associated with the Altay Mountains area of central Asia. (Taken from wikipedia)
Nothing in the Book of Mormon precludes migration into the Americas by peoples of Asiatic origin. (Taken from the link above.)
Result: There is nothing mutually exclusive thus both can be true.
It seems that your entire argument hinges on there not being any other people on the entire America continents except for what the Book of Mormon addresses. That is what seems very improbable.
Yes, I read through one and skimmed another. I also read through the related wekipedia article and a few of the cited references.
That is good. I did not ask to be rude. I asked simply because I have had many people do just that. They show me that there are people who have answered these questions and simply assume that it's correct. I applaud you for taking the time to look into it.
I kind of feel like asking you the same thing.
I try to do that constantly. I doubt you will believe me, but if I were to find evidence for the Book of Mormon I would accept it. If I found strong evidence for God, I would believe in him. I accept that my knowledge is so very limited when it comes to the questions of the universe. I am constantly looking for more. I am where I am today and believe what I believe because I have followed the evidence that I have found to its natural conclusion. As more evidence appears I will continue to follow it.
Mormons and Christians, in general, have a very difficult time examining evidence objectively. Their belief is not based upon evidence but upon faith. You can see this throughout the articles that you provided. Most talk about how you can't gain a testimony of the Book of Mormon through rational examination, it has to come through faith (ie Moroni 10:3-5).
It seems that any of my comments, no matter how small or in attempted objectivity, seem to set you off.
I'm confused at what you mean by "seem to set you off." Are you saying that I am responding very angrily? If so, I apologize. Unless you are attacking me personally or those whom I love, I try to stay very calm. If I have failed to do this, please point it out that I might apologize and correct myself.
Perhaps you are actually simply referring to the fact that I attempt to rebut everything you say. That's not true either. When you put forth a good argument, I accept it. Note the last paragraph of my very first comment on this article. I will rebut what is wrong and I will accept what is valid.
Result: There is nothing mutually exclusive thus both can be true.
A simple question. Why is it that no non-Mormon anthropologist gives any credence to the Book of Mormon's claims?
It seems that your entire argument hinges on there not being any other people on the entire America continents except for what the Book of Mormon addresses. That is what seems very improbable.
That is not quite true. The whole argument comes down to the question of whether Israelite DNA was covered up by the DNA of other indigenous peoples. There are a number of problems with this claim.
The biggest question in my mind is why is there no mention in the Book of Mormon that there were other people? They make such a big deal of finding the Mulekites and Coriantumr, why don't they make a big deal about finding any other civilizations? That just seems odd.
Also, the Book of Mormon seems to imply that there are no other people there. Let's look at 2 Nephi 1.
8 And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.
9 Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance and they shall dwell safely forever.
These scriptures seem to imply pretty strongly that they were the only ones over here. It's also clear in reading the words of Joseph Smith that he held the same view, that Lehites were the only ones here.
Now, let's assume that there were other peoples here. You are still left with the question of how the DNA of such a massive civilization (as the Nephites clearly were) became completely diluted and entirely disappeared in a mere 1,500 years.
Lastly, where did this other group come from? The Book of Mormon is quite clear that no one comes to the Americas unless they are led here. Also, they would have had to come no more than about 5,000 years ago, around the time of the Jaredites. They could not have come across the Bering Strait 20,000 years ago. They couldn't have come before the flood (unless they all had water-wings). So, even if there were people here, we have some major genetic diversity issues that would have to be dealt with.
I have one last general note to all of the issues with the Book of Mormon and with Christianity in general. Actually, it's more of a question than a note:
Why? Why make it so difficult to look at with a rational mind? Why is God hiding from us? If the flood is real or the Book of Mormon, it's almost like he's actively hiding the truth from us. Why is the evidence such that a rational person has a difficult time believing while still being honest with themselves?
I imagine you might say "So that people have faith." But why is faith so important? Why would God want us to do things when there is absolutely zero evidence?
Imagine if we allowed this sort of thing in our courts of law. "In closing I would like the jury to understand that they will never conclude that the defendant is innocent by looking at the evidence. On the contrary, you must simply believe that he is innocent."
It's ludicrous, and yet we enshrine this sort of logic in the religious realm. I simply don't understand why suspending one's rationality and depending upon faith is a good thing. Faith is what causes terrorists to fly into buildings, Christians to murder abortionists, mothers and fathers to exile their children, paupers to give their money to corrupt leaders, people to hate, and all manner of other atrocity.
I dream of a day when we all stop believing and all start thinking.
I'm confused at what you mean by "seem to set you off."
Yes it seemed to me that you were responding angrily or mockingly. I suppose it was the writing in all caps and asking if I had even read the references, which you explained later.
Why is it that no non-Mormon anthropologist gives any credence to the Book of Mormon's claims?
Well I suppose that once a non-Mormon anthropologist does give credence to the Book of Mormon's claims then he/she would soon after become Mormon. ;)
The biggest question in my mind is why is there no mention in the Book of Mormon that there were other people?
The Book of Mormon was never meant to document that type of information. Multiple times in the Book of Mormon they mention that not even a hundreth part was able to be written down. On top of that Mormon abridged what was written down. Of the stuff that Mormon did write down, it was meant to teach and testify of Christ.
There is a whole theory that discusses the potentially limited geography of the Book of Mormon.
Also, the Book of Mormon seems to imply that there are no other people there.
Those scriptures do seems to imply that there was no one else there at the time. However it is unspecific to what land the scriptures refer. Is it the entire American continents? Is it a smaller area occupied by the Nephites and Lamanites? Either way we do see that the people did eventually violate their end of the promise (to keep the commandments) thus nullifying the promise of exclusivity to the land.
Now, let's assume that there were other peoples here. You are still left with the question of how the DNA of such a massive civilization (as the Nephites clearly were) became completely diluted and entirely disappeared in a mere 1,500 years.
I think you forget that the Book of Mormon ends with the near death of the "massive civilization" that once existed.
Lastly, where did this other group come from?
Well by looking at genetics it seems that they might have come from East Asia. Yes, that last sentence was a bit sarcastic but my point is that the Book of Mormon doesn't contain that information nor contradict that information.
I suppose it was the writing in all caps...
Upon reading this I was surprised. I asked myself, "When did I ever write all in caps?" Then I looked back and found the spot. Honestly, I have no clue why I did. It seems really out-of-place. I must have been hungry at the time or something. :) In any case, I apologize for that outburst. It was definitely uncalled for.
Well I suppose that once a non-Mormon anthropologist does give credence to the Book of Mormon's claims then he/she would soon after become Mormon. ;)
I guess the question then becomes, why have no non-Mormon anthropologists joined the church as a result of their studies? At least, I don't know of any who have. If there are any, I'd be interested to hear about it.
Of the stuff that Mormon did write down, it was meant to teach and testify of Christ.
And yet there are so many weird things that are thrown in that seem so non sequitor in nature, things that have nothing to do with Christ. It still seems like a huge population of other people would be a significant thing to share when taken in the context of stories like Hagoth. But, I can understand where you are coming from on this as well.
Either way we do see that the people did eventually violate their end of the promise (to keep the commandments) thus nullifying the promise of exclusivity to the land.
But the larger population would have had to arrive earlier than the Nephites. So the promise would have had to be preemptively nullified by God. Also, I feel that it's pretty clear that they are talking about the Americas in general in these passages, not just some subset of the Americas. Interpreting these passages to mean a subset pretty much destroys the whole weight of the message.
Well by looking at genetics it seems that they might have come from East Asia.
Of course, then we run into problems with Noah and the flood, but that's a complete different subject.
There's one other thing I'd like to say as a bit of a side-note. I've already touched upon this previously, but I feel the need to elaborate.
No matter what claim is put forth, one can always find an explanation. I could generate an explanation to defend any belief/hypothesis in the world. Nevertheless, the fact that an explanation exists does not imply that said explanation is actually true.
It's easy to come up with explanations. What's hard is to come up with explanations that make strong predictions which then become validated by future observations. Einstein's theory of relativity did not become well respected until a solar eclipse provided astronomers an opportunity to observe the effect of gravity on light, just as Einstein predicted. It was not the theory's ability to explain previously observed phenomena, but it's ability to predict previously unobserved phenomena.
We see that the Book of Mormon has failed to predict anything. So, apologists are left to explain why we don't observe things that we would expect to observe. Obviously they are capable of devising explanations; it's not hard. And yet, if Einstein had spent his life giving plausible explanations as to why his predictions were wrong, it's unlikely that we would even know his name today.
Ultimately, the Book of Mormon provides no internal reason to believe its content. The only evidence it provides is one's emotions and feelings. The exact same feelings that everyone feels for their particular belief system, be they Cristian, Muslim, Jew, Atheist, etc.
Kalon, you told me recently that the church makes logical sense. I ask where this logic is hiding. I can't seem to find it.
Post a Comment