Mormon church and DNA?


#1

What is this about? Hugh Hewitt refers to it and I have not had time to research it? Is there a 25 word explanation?


#2

The Mormon Church has always insisted that American Indians are descended from one of the tribes of Israel. The Book of Mormon explains how this happened. Recent DNA research has debunked this idea and proved that Native Americans are descended from Mongolians who crossed the Bering straits during the last ice age, and that Native Americans have no genetic markers for Israelites. This has caused a crisis of faith among thinking Mormons.


#3

Paul basically nailed it.

In the Book of Mormon it clearly states that Israelites are the principal ancestors of Native Americans. However now there is contradictory evidence regading DNA. In fact Indians come from Asia, as people have thought for a very long time now, and not from the Middle East.


#4

Thanks for the explanation.


#5

amazon.com/gp/product/1560851813/103-9618971-6733459?v=glance&n=283155

There is more DNA evidence coming up. If you want more information, send me a personal message.


#6

I’ve just read the reviews at Amazon and have a question:

Are there any geneticists using this forum who can comment on tracing a people’s genetic and racial origins through millennia.

Some of the reviews say “good science”. Some say “bad science”. Does the “bad science” view have any merit at all?


#7

Given my knowlege of statistics-- not DNA science-- I would have to say that the further you go back, the larger of a sample size you need to make any inferences from that data.

You might get a better answer if you went to exmormon.org/boards/w-agora/index.php?site=exmobb&bn=exmobb_recovery It is not as rabidly anti-mormon as it used to be. An objective question like that would be recieved well, IMO.


#8

The Mormon Church has always insisted that American Indians are descended from one of the tribes of Israel. The Book of Mormon explains how this happened. Recent DNA research has debunked this idea and** proved that Native Americans are descended from Mongolians** who crossed the Bering straits during the last ice age, and that Native Americans have no genetic markers for Israelites. This has caused a crisis of faith among thinking Mormons.

Give the Mormons enough time and they will claim that the Mongolians came from the twelve tribes of Israel.

Thal59


#9

[quote=asteroid]I’ve just read the reviews at Amazon and have a question:

Are there any geneticists using this forum who can comment on tracing a people’s genetic and racial origins through millennia.

Some of the reviews say “good science”. Some say “bad science”. Does the “bad science” view have any merit at all?
[/quote]

I’m not a geneticist, but if it is implied that American Indians are the Principal relations to the Lehites and Jaredites that came from Israel, there would be without a doubt significant markers’ pointing towards Middle Eastern descent as opposed to almost all Asiatic, with some mixed European and Aftrican due to mix marrying after the ‘New World’ was discovered. I don’t think the argument can be that Indians are ‘only’ related to the Lehites and Jaredites anymore, and very few Mormons will hold to this idea anymore as it appears to be fruitless.

I’m of Irish descent, my genetic make up would undoubtedly show European (caucasion) markers. There might be a mix, but what you won’t see is the majority of my markers showing predominantly Asiatic descent.

The newer theory to counter this are the LGT (limited geographic theory). However there is much in the Book of Mormon, and what was spoken by early leaders of the Church that seems to point to that was never understood to be the case.

There has definitely been an abrupt 180 about the lineage of Native Americans. 10-15 years ago if you asked a Mormon where the Indians came from they would say Israel from the Jaredites and Lehites. Now if you ask them, you will get, the indians came from Asia, but they mixed with a very small group of Israelites, that’s why their DNA is lost amongst Asian DNA. Either way the Chruches and the Mormon streets position on the issue has drastically changed very recently.


#10

The current diffusionist theories are that there are four populations that assimilated with the Indians in the Americas in pre-Columbian times:

The Olmec in South Central Mexico-- 1300 BC-- from West Africa. Any possibility of Jewish DNA would be very tenuous.

Polynesians on the West coast of the Americas. No Jewish DNA there, contrary to Mormon claims. Who knows what date can be given to that.

The Vikings in the Great Lakes area. 1000 years ago to 600 years ago. No Jewish DNA there, although I believe that Indian legends of the Viking invasion contributed to the BOM. Many of them (Nephites:rolleyes: ), because of their racism and raiding ways were killed off.

The Melungeons-- probably descended from a group of shipwrecked Portugese sailors in immediate pre-Columbian times. There could possibly be some Jewish DNA there, but the time-line is way off from the Mormon time-line.


#11

Many of them (Nephites:rolleyes: ), because of their racism and raiding ways were killed off.

Furthermore, I suggest, based on a book written about 1839, that a likely site for the “Hill Cumora” story, the Viking’s “New West Settlement” could be on the St. Lawrence River, near Trois Rivieres.


#12

[quote=MJE]What is this about? Hugh Hewitt refers to it and I have not had time to research it? Is there a 25 word explanation?
[/quote]

You people want to have your cake and eat it. According to Bible chronology, the Flood occurred somewhere between 4,000 and 5,000 years ago, and the whole of the human race descended from one family Noah since that time. That is less than twice as long as the family of Lehi emigrated to, and began to populate the American continent. They emigrated to America in 600 BC, which is 2,600 years ago. How do you account for the enormous genetic diversity that has occurred among the entire human race during the relatively short period of time that has elapsed since the flood? According to modern geneticists, of course it didn’t! According to them, it would be impossible for such enormous genetic diversity to have occurred among human populations in such a short space of time. They believe that it occurred over millions and millions of years of evolution. So you guys are going to have to make up your minds whose side you are going to on, Evolution or Creation. You can’t have both hats on, and swap hats whenever it suits you. If you are going to be on the side of Evolution, then that knocks the Bible as well as the Book of Mormon off its perch. If, on the other hand, you are going to be on the side of Creation, then you have no choice but to accept that if God was able and willing to directly intervene in various human populations to cause such wide genetic variations among them (for whatever reason) in so short a time since the Flood, that He would be equally able and willing to cause the same genetic diversity among the Nephite population (for whatever reason) that emigrated to the Americas.

amgid


#13

[quote=amgid]You people want to have your cake and eat it. According to Bible chronology, the Flood occurred somewhere between 4,000 and 5,000 years ago, and the whole of the human race descended from one family Noah since that time. That is less than twice as long as the family of Lehi emigrated to, and began to populate the American continent. They emigrated to America in 600 BC, which is 2,600 years ago.

amgid
[/quote]

You people? Don’t you read the Bible too? Why is it that LDS always attempt to back there position up, and validate the Book of Mormon by discrediting the Bible they claim to read from, and believe to be Holy Scripture?

The point is the Americas weren’t populated by Europeans, only Lamanites and Nephites for the vast majority of those 2,600 years. Since Native Americans are the principal descendants of the Lehites. That means that Native Americans would have not had any outside influence until about 500 years ago, simply passing on Hebrew genes for thousands of years. That is dramatically different to your 2,600 years ago idea.


#14

[quote=amgid]You people want to have your cake and eat it. According to Bible chronology, the Flood occurred somewhere between 4,000 and 5,000 years ago, and the whole of the human race descended from one family Noah since that time. That is less than twice as long as the family of Lehi emigrated to, and began to populate the American continent. They emigrated to America in 600 BC, which is 2,600 years ago. How do you account for the enormous genetic diversity that has occurred among the entire human race during the relatively short period of time that has elapsed since the flood? According to modern geneticists, of course it didn’t! According to them, it would be impossible for such enormous genetic diversity to have occurred among human populations in such a short space of time. They believe that it occurred over millions and millions of years of evolution. So you guys are going to have to make up your minds whose side you are going to on, Evolution or Creation. You can’t have both hats on, and swap hats whenever it suits you. If you are going to be on the side of Evolution, then that knocks the Bible as well as the Book of Mormon off its perch. If, on the other hand, you are going to be on the side of Creation, then you have no choice but to accept that if God was able and willing to directly intervene in various human populations to cause such wide genetic variations among them (for whatever reason) in so short a time since the Flood, that He would be equally able and willing to cause the same genetic diversity among the Nephite population (for whatever reason) that emigrated to the Americas.

amgid
[/quote]

excuse me but exactly where did the Catholic church claim that all inhabitants of the earth are descended from Noah in the last 5,000 years? Nice straw man but completely irelevant.

From “Creation Rediscovered: Evolution and the Importance of the Origins Debate”

by Gerard J. Keane Tan Publishers, Rockford Illinois, 61105 C. 1999:
13. The Flood
The Flood of Noah may be the most confusing story in all of scripture. Aside from the difficulty (the insurmountable difficulty) of finding evidence (not to mention water) for a single, simultaneous, worldwide flood, there is the whole philosophical and theological issue: the suggestion that God once repented of his creation and tried to deal with sin by killing the sinners. It didn’t work, so he promised the frightened Noah he would never do it again, at least not with water.
My own perspective on this completely changed when I read Noah’s Flood by Pitman and Ryan. For the first time, I saw that there had been a flood of massive proportions, one clearly marked in the gelogical record, one that certainly changed the course of human history, and one which contradicted no principles of meteorology or any other natural science. I have already discussed the difficulty of finding water to cover the entire earth, and the physical impossibility as well as the blinding darkness which must follow if it were reserved in the sky until the days of Noah. But the Church does not require Her children to believe that the entire earth was covered, or even that every single man on earth was killed; only that there was a real Noah, loving God, and a real flood because of God’s inability to work with mankind under the circumstances. It is real history, even if incomplete and “popular”. The account of the Black Sea Flood meets these requirements.
In fact, it may take us one step further.
If Noah was a survivor of the Black Sea Flood, then we may perceive his role in salvation history as that of bringing the Covenant from the first City, which was drowned for some sins, to the new generation of Cities that would cover the world as the farming community abruptly migrated from the shores of the Black Sea Lake. The Jewish laws – the laws of Noah’s people – against usury and slavery are precisely the essential laws for human civilization. Viewed in this way, the Flood of Noah fits right into salvation history, God building up a people who could know him on earth.

This work pulls from here to be correct:

*14. Regarding the Magisterium
At the end of his book, Keane gives the complete text of the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s statements about interpreting Genesis. The Pontifical Biblical Commission of 1909, that is.
Other documents that need to be considered are:

  1. Divino Afflante Spiritu
  2. Humanae Generis 1950
  3. The 1979 words of our present Pope to the Pontifical Academy when he called them to an in-depth study of the Galileo case.
  4. The 1996 words of the same Pope to the same Academy, regarding evolution. *

#15

[quote=amgid]You people want to have your cake and eat it. According to Bible chronology, the Flood occurred somewhere between 4,000 and 5,000 years ago, and the whole of the human race descended from one family Noah since that time. That is less than twice as long as the family of Lehi emigrated to, and began to populate the American continent. They emigrated to America in 600 BC, which is 2,600 years ago. How do you account for the enormous genetic diversity that has occurred among the entire human race during the relatively short period of time that has elapsed since the flood? According to modern geneticists, of course it didn’t! According to them, it would be impossible for such enormous genetic diversity to have occurred among human populations in such a short space of time. They believe that it occurred over millions and millions of years of evolution. So you guys are going to have to make up your minds whose side you are going to on, Evolution or Creation. You can’t have both hats on, and swap hats whenever it suits you. If you are going to be on the side of Evolution, then that knocks the Bible as well as the Book of Mormon off its perch. If, on the other hand, you are going to be on the side of Creation, then you have no choice but to accept that if God was able and willing to directly intervene in various human populations to cause such wide genetic variations among them (for whatever reason) in so short a time since the Flood, that He would be equally able and willing to cause the same genetic diversity among the Nephite population (for whatever reason) that emigrated to the Americas.

amgid
[/quote]

“You people”? Wow, your posts keep getting less and less charitable each time you post. The Magisterium does not teach that there was a “worldwide global flood”, and for that matter neither does Sacred Scripture.


#16

[quote=amgid]You people want to have your cake and eat it. According to Bible chronology, the Flood occurred somewhere between 4,000 and 5,000 years ago, and the whole of the human race descended from one family Noah since that time. That is less than twice as long as the family of Lehi emigrated to, and began to populate the American continent. They emigrated to America in 600 BC, which is 2,600 years ago. How do you account for the enormous genetic diversity that has occurred among the entire human race during the relatively short period of time that has elapsed since the flood? According to modern geneticists, of course it didn’t! According to them, it would be impossible for such enormous genetic diversity to have occurred among human populations in such a short space of time. They believe that it occurred over millions and millions of years of evolution. So you guys are going to have to make up your minds whose side you are going to on, Evolution or Creation. You can’t have both hats on, and swap hats whenever it suits you. If you are going to be on the side of Evolution, then that knocks the Bible as well as the Book of Mormon off its perch. If, on the other hand, you are going to be on the side of Creation, then you have no choice but to accept that if God was able and willing to directly intervene in various human populations to cause such wide genetic variations among them (for whatever reason) in so short a time since the Flood, that He would be equally able and willing to cause the same genetic diversity among the Nephite population (for whatever reason) that emigrated to the Americas.

amgid
[/quote]

A couple things here…

On populating the Americas:
In general, LDS apologists have moved away from the claim that the Americas were populated primarily from Lehi’s descendants. This is simply because the DNA evidence makes that claim impossible. The only semi-workable explanation is that Lehi’s descendants interbred with the much larger native populations.
I’m amazed that you’re holding to a view which has been totally discredited.

On the flood:
When I left Mormonism because I became agnostic, this story was one of the pillars of my doubt. The story as told in the Bible, is beyond all possibility. No one in my faith community, my Bishop, friends, family, could give me even an inkling of a workable explanation. I was instructed to suspend all logic and reason and just believe what is simply unbelievable. This is not the same as believing in a miracle, I would have, and did, accept the possibility of miracles.

What makes the flood story unworkable(as it is told in the Bible) is that it claims facts that are simply mutually exclusive. One example among many; it gives the size of the ark, so we know it was a small ship by todays standards, then claims that every living land and air based creature lived in it for over a year. It dosen’t say God shrank all of the creatures to 1/100 of their size and then put them in suspended animation, which is what would have needed to happen for this story to be true.

The fact is there was no global flood. Assuming that the flood story was truth from the perspective of the people who passed it down for centuries, it only makes sense that there was a catastrophic regional flood. That region WAS their whole world. I can now believe in Noah, the ark and the rest because I now have a reasonable explanation for the Biblical account. I don’t have to suspend reason any longer to accept the story in general. That’s what’s so great about being Catholic. You don’t have to compartmentalize your mind to believe.


#17

[quote=Semper Fi]The Magisterium does not teach that there was a “worldwide global flood”, and for that matter neither does Sacred Scripture.
[/quote]

I don’t know about the Magisterium; but the Bible most certainly does teach that there was a “worldwide global flood”:

Genesis 6:

7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Genesis 7:

4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

20 Fifteen cubits upward {above the highest peaks} did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

Genesis 8:

21 And the Lord smelled a sweet savour {of Noah’s sacrifice after the Flood}; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

1 Peter 3:

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
Also, you might like to ask, if the flood was not universal, why would God command Noah to build an ark? Why would He not command them (and all the beasts and the birds) simply to migrate to that part of the earth which was not going to be flooded? So the Magisterium is wrong I am afraid. The plain and indisputable meaning of the word of God speaks otherwise. I don’t think the Magisterium is in a position to declare the Bible null and void.

But I will play ball with you guys! I am addressing this now to all those who have replied to my post in this thread so far, not just to Semper Fi:

Let us assume for the sake of the argument that you are right, and the Flood was not universal. So let us go back a few more years to the beginning of the creation. According to the Bible chronology, Adam and Eve began to procreate and populate the earth approximately 6,000 years ago (that is only 1,000 years earlier than Noah, which is nothing in evolutionary terms). That still leaves open the question of how did this enormous genetic diversity in human populations occur in such a short space of time of just 6,000 years! That would be impossible according to modern genetic theory. What has the Magisteriusm said about that? Have they determined that the biblical doctrine of Creation is wrong too? With due respect, I don’t think that the Magisterium (whatever that means, I still don’t know what it means) is in a position to declare the Bible null and void. The word of God stands, according to the plain meaning of the terms.

amgid


#18

I find it very confusing that LDS want to use literal interpretation of the Bible when it suits them but claim it’s not translated correctly when it doesn’t. There are many subtleties in ancient Hebrew that can easily be taken out of context. Thus the need for the magisterium. Someon seeking to discuss issues of import on a CATHOLIC board would do well to at least expend the effort to look it up.

*Magisterium (Lat. magister, a master):
The Church’s divinely appointed authority to teach the truths of religion,

  "Going therefore, teach ye all nations... teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matt. xxviii, 19-20). This teaching is infallible: "And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (ibid.). 

The solemn magisterium is that which is exercised only rarely by formal and authentic definitions of councils or popes. Its matter comprises dogmatic definitions of æcumenical councils or of the popes teaching ex cathedra, or of particular councils, if their decrees are universally accepted or approved in solemn form by the pope; also creeds and professions of faith put forward or solemnly approved by pope or æcumenical council. The ordinary magisterium is continually exercised by the Church especially in her universal practices connected with faith and morals, in the unanimous consent of the Fathers (q.v.) and theologians, in the decisions of Roman Congregations concerning faith and morals, in the common sense (q.v.) of the faithful, and various historical documents in which the faith is declared. All these are founts of a teaching which as a whole is infallible. They have to be studied separately to determine how far and in what conditions each of them is an infallible source of truth.

A CATHOLIC DICTIONARY (THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPÆDIC DICTIONARY)
Edited By Donald Attwater
New York, The Macmillan Company, 1962.
(Copyright 1958, Third Edition)
Library of Congress catalog card number: 58-5797 *

Now earlier I had refernced the Pontifical comission and what they had to say regarding Genesis. Here is what is relevant:

*With the backing of Pope Pius X, the Commission declared that certain truths must be held no matter what the latest scientific theories claim to the contrary. These unarguable points are:

That God created all things at the beginning of time;
That man was specially created;
That the first woman came from the first man;
That all humans are of a single original race;
That our first parents lived in a happy state of justice, integrity, and immortality;
That God gave them a command to test their obedience;
That they disobeyed the divine command at the instigation of the devil who took on the form of a serpent;
That our first parents fell from their state of innocence;
And that they were promised a future redeemer.*

The timeline is unimportant and not really told us in detail in the Bible. Many things are told from the perspective of the Author and the primary intent is to tach spiritual principles. The Catholic church recognizes the value of both scripture and tradition and freely acknowledges that some scriptural lessons are (like the parables) symbolic rather than literal. We believe that we came from Adam and Eve but we don’t know how long it took them to populate the earth.

Your own scripture references illustrate this as ALL flesh wasn’t destroyed. Noah and family and everything aboard the ark was preserved. Try reading a whole Bible instead of a Bible full of holes. I would suggest something more accurate and understandable than the King James.

Mocking the magisterium without even bothering to look up a definition is the act of a desperate anti-Catholic who isn’t interested in truth. The Catholic view is that God created everything. He didn’t tell us exactly how nor did he he give us a detailed timeline. Science is compatible with religion as it continues to show that life is far too complex the be a “coincidence”.


#19

Should we re-define FLDS? :smiley:


#20

I can go along with your uncertainty of time line in regards to the process of creation, as there are no guiding information givien to us to indicate how long the days of creation were, most assume that the time line is the same as today. So there is some leeway for discussion in this regard. However, there are scriptural genealogies that show the generations and the years between these generations. I suppose one could argue that the years of the earlier generations where somehow longer than ours, but that has not been revealed to us as yet. However, I believe that what ever the generational timeline it is still far shorter than time the evolutionists claim for genetic diversity.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.