Arnold Friberg's "The Stripling Warriors." The origin of the Native Americans
used to be explained by the Book of Mormon, but studies find this is not the case.
The May issue of the journal of Molecular Biology and Evolution lays to rest any lingering questions about Native American ancestry: Lehi and his family almost certainly had nothing to do with it.
This isn't entirely new information. Previous studies looking at genetics had already shown that the Native American population was most likely the exclusive descendants of a group that had traveled across the Bering Strait from Siberia some 12,000 years ago.
But some scholars felt that the DNA studies left open a chance that a number of seperate immigrations could have contributed to the Native American population.
Mormons were especially keen to this idea because according to the Book of Mormon, Lehi and his family settled in the New World in about 600 B.C. The Book of Mormon follows his descendents for nearly 1,000 years as they build two empires.
Finding some of their genetic imprint in the Native American population would be a wonderful confirmation of the reality of the Book of Mormon.
When previous studies didn't find any sign of Israelite DNA in the Native American population, Mormons tried to find holes in the studies, or proposed possible scenarios that would explain why we wouldn't find it in the modern population. Some examples:
The mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) lineage of Nephi's children (and of Laman's offspring) would come through Ishmael's wife...unfortunately, Ishmael's wife is of unknown background and heritage.
While Lehi's direct male offspring would possess a copy of his Y chromosome, it is unclear whether or not these offspring would also have Manasseh, Joseph, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham in their patrilineage, because Lehi is listed only as "a descendant of Manasseh"
It is entirely conceivable that one or more groups had broken away from the main Jaredite colony and survived outside of the record describing the downfall of the Coriantumr and Shiz camps.
By pointing out things we don't know, or speculating on unrecorded events, Mormon apologists are essentially attempting to "establish reasonable doubt." That is, they're creating "gaps" that are designed to make it seem as though there could be a way to allow for an Israelite presence in the Americas that would be undetectable in today's genetic studies.
This is post-hoc rationalization, and is really just trying to cover for the lack of any positive evidence for Mormon claims - no Israelite DNA. John Butler concludes:
While it is possible to speculate endlessly about scenarios that would make Book of Mormon story lines compatible with current DNA evidence, the record itself is simply not descriptive enough to provide definitive calibration points with which to make confident scientific conclusions.
Thus, we are left where we started (and where I believe the Lord intended us to be)—in the realm of faith. A spiritual witness is the only way to know the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. Although DNA studies have made links between Native Americans and Asians, these studies in no way invalidate the Book of Mormon despite the loud voices of detractors.
The opponents of historicity of the Book of Mormon must prove that the people whose religious life it records did not live anywhere in the Americas.
This is shifting the burden of proof. Mormon apologists have taken up position that these DNA studies can't prove Lehi and his descendants were never here. Which is true, but irrelevant.
This is a bit like looking at a photograph of some trees and then claiming that the photograph doesn't disprove the existence of Bigfoot. He might simply be hiding behind one of the trees, or is standing just outside of the frame, after all. We can come up with any sort of explanation we want, but the fact remains: there is no Bigfoot in the image.
It's not anyone's job to prove Israelites never existed anywhere, anytime in the Americas. It would be the believers job to give us a reason to think that they ever did.
And finding creative ways to hide them is not a reason.
This new study eliminates at least some of those hiding places, and seals the case even tighter than it was before.
Now, after painstakingly comparing DNA samples from people in dozens of modern-day Native American and Eurasian groups, an international team of scientists thinks it can put the matter to rest: Virtually without exception the new evidence supports the single ancestral population theory.
Comments
Actually, some Mormon Church apologists are already coming around to the truth that the Book of Mormon is not literal history. One prominent LDS radio program host, Van Hale has said on the air that the Book of Mormon is not history.
Just google Van Hale Book of Mormon
With Mormon Defender Van Hale saying this publicly, it's just a matter of time before other apologists follow as the evidence mounts against Book of Mormon claims.
It's not news that the Nephites and Lamanites are NOT ancestors of Native Americans. Although LDS people uneducated in archaeology and anthropology make assumptions, many others are aware that the two groups are not related.
There are, however, studies linking the Mesoamerican tribes (Aztec, Maya, Olmec) to people of Middle Eastern origin.
Read Parallels by Diane Wirth, or read articles about cranial comparisons between ethnicities. I cannot post a link, but you may find articles online.
Interesting article. Thanks.
First time reader.
Very interesting article, thank you for sharing.
I agree with John Butler. This will be disproved again and again, but it's about faith.
Cranial measurements and comparisons are racist attempts to promote one race over another. They have no basis in science and were debunked early in the 20th century. They certainly do not trump DNA. There is no genealogical link between the indigenous peoples of the Americas and anywhere other than east Asia. For a great mDNA report see Bryan Sykes' The Seven Daughters of Eve.
I agree with John Butler. This will be disproved again and again, but it's about faith.
--
Remind me again of the difference between People of Faith and People of Credulity/
Oooooo! Now you've attracted Defenders! Congratulations. The BoM is certainly less literal than even the Bible is. Ask the Catholics how defending against heliocentricity went. People will leave you simply because you insist in the complete and literal truthfulness of your scripture. Of course you'll lose people if you admit that Nephi never existed. Rock. Hard place. Take comfort in the fact that truth hasn't stopped the Evangelicals and just deny, deny, deny, I guess.
Great article again, Jon. I quite literally couldn't have said it better myself.
I'm going to be the grammar police here by advising the author of the article to review the proper usage of an apostrophe. An apostrophe-s is never added to pluralize a word. Never.
You did it twice in your article. The first time ("scenario's"), I attributed it to a typo. Upon the second infraction ("America's"), I realized the author may not know what an apostrophe is for.
An apostrophe-s is used for possession "Mary's car," "John's house," "America's freeways." or as a contraction such as "What's for dinner" or "Who's going to the ball game?"
I'm happy to hear that Mormons aren't finding any help from science, and the article is otherwise well-written. But it would behoove the author to brush up on apostrophes.
"It's not anyones job to prove Israelites never existed anywhere, anytime in the America's."
Improper grammar is quite upsetting to me.
Of all the criticism I expected to get, complaints about apostrophes were not among them. I appreciate the clarification, though. :)
Once again, Fact lands a striking blow to Mormons. Of course all of them will comment that REAL EVIDENCE is unnecessary, and POINTS proven against their claims are only met with a fierce defense that faith is all that is necessary. It's laughable the lengths they go to bury things like this!
The Book of Mormon and Mormons don't believe that ALL native americans descended from Lehi. The Book of Mormon talks of several groups who migrated to the Americas - Jaredites, people of Zarahamela, etc. This theory is entirely compatible with what the Book of Mormon teaches and doesn't disprove it at all.
Dave:
I think you're missing the big point here - the Native Americans are all descendants of East Asians. The other groups you mentioned do not account for this. Jaredites? All killed in a war according to the Book of Mormon. The people of Zarahemla? Came from Israel according to the Book of Mormon.
The introduction of the Book of Mormon, written by Joseph Smith, says that the principal ancestors of the Native Americans are the Lamanites (i.e. of Middle eastern descent). I hear the church is going to change the wording to suggest the Lamanites are "among" the ancestors of Native Americans. Which begs the question, if Joseph was wrong about that part of the introduction, what about the part that says this it is the most correct book on the face of the earth?
Dave: You're correct, but missing the point. Of course you can find ways for these results to be compatible with LDS belief, but the most straightforward explanation for the lack of Israelite DNA is the lack of Israelites.
Ben: To be fair, Joseph didn't write the introduction. That was added much later. So Mormons can say that it isn't "official doctrine" and so isn't binding. It turns out that quite a lot of what Mormons believe isn't "official doctrine."
The Book of Mormon and the Bible are not going to be proven by test tubes and lab work, because the Lord never intended them to be. It would take away from faith which is an essential part of our existence. There is no proof that life exists off Earth and yet that doesn’t stop people from searching and we don’t ridicule them for believing. If the Lord wanted the world to have undeniable proof, He would have provided it. A scripture in the Book of Mormon explains. 3 Nephi 26: 9-11 And when they shall have received this, which is expedient that they should have first, to try their faith, and if it shall so be that they shall believe these things then shall the greater things be made manifest unto them. And if it so be that they will not believe these things, then shall the greater things be withheld from them, unto their condemnation. Behold, I was about to write them, all which were engraven upon the plates of Nephi, but the Lord forbade it, saying: I will try the faith of my people.
Mr. N,
Did you read the article? It's not saying that there's a lack of evidence for your belief. It says that there's strong evidence *contradicting* your belief. Big difference.
Jonathan,
Very well written article. Yet, I note some contradictions in your assertions. Late in the article you state that "Mormon apologists have taken up position that these DNA studies can't prove Lehi and his descendants were never here. Which is true, but irrelevant."
If it is true--as you say--that DNA studies can't prove Lehi and his descendants were never here, then why do you start the article by citing a DNA study (the May issue of the Journal of Molecular Biology and Evolution) and then state that the study puts to rest the question of whether Lehi was ever here or not? Which way is it, really, in your view? Or, were you simply "throwing a bone" to the LDS apologists and scholars with whom you apparently disagree?
While I agree with your early statement that finding "some of their genetic imprint in the Native American population would be a wonderful confirmation of the reality of the Book of Mormon," I am left at a loss (as are most DNA scholars--LDS or not) to determine how that imprint could possibly be determined when nobody knows what "Israelite DNA" looked like over 2600 years ago. If one doesn't have a valid sample against which to compare, how can one know that the comparison is valid or draw any conclusions at all?
-Allen
It is a gross error to state that "The introduction of the Book of Mormon, written by Joseph Smith, says that the principal ancestors of the Native Americans are the Lamanites (i.e. of Middle eastern descent)."
Joseph Smith did not write that. That opinion was written in the Introduction by Elder Bruce R. McConkie just a couple of years ago and was never canonized.
It is not LDS doctrine that Lamanites are principal ancestors of Native Americans. The Introduction has been changed in new editions of the Book of Mormon.
Allen,
Thanks for the comments. I think the problem with the apologist position is that it's essentially asking us to prove a negative, and that until we do, belief is still valid. We can't prove the Egyptians or the Greeks were never in the Americas, either, but that doesn't mean we should think they were.
In other words, this is an impossible task. We can never prove without a doubt that something *didn't* happen. We can only prove that something *did* happen. And what did happen is that a little over 12,000 years ago, a group of Siberians crossed the Bering Strait and began to populate the Americas. That's what the study was about, and the reason I say that Lehi almost certainly had nothing to do with modern Native American ancestry: he wouldn't have been among those Siberians.
Anything else is simply trying to work the Book of Mormon story into existing gaps of our knowledge. Pointing to unknowns and uncertainties so that we can find a way to mesh a preconceived religious story into what archeology and genetics can tell us. You've suggested that we don't know what Lehi's DNA might have looked like, thus we might never find it. This is one of those gaps, and all it's really doing is explaining the lack of Lehi DNA. A more direct explanation for the lack of Lehi DNA, taking everything else into consideration, is a lack of Lehi.
I can't understand why adherents and apologetics from this faith try to keep something going that is obviously already been debunked. Respected Mormon archaeologist Professor Dee F. Green stated the first myth we need to eliminate is that the Book of Mormon archaeology exists. If one is to study the book of Mormon archaeology, then one must have a corpus of data with which to deal. We do not. Also look within Nephi who allegedly wrote 600 to 500 b.c and his accuracy of quoting Mathew, mark, Luk, Pater, and Paul verbatim centuries before they wrote their gospels exactly identical to the King James Version with the italics (italics is added for the reader not direct translation within King James). One explanation for this the characters in th Book of Mormon were purely fictitious, and everything they said, including quotations from the Old and New Testments, was certainly written by Joseph Smith. 1971 Guilty Smith records found for pretending to find buried treasure by "glass looking'.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!