Book of Mormon and DNA

My post is a hodge-podge of links and thoughts. For that, I apologize.
The LDS church came out with an essay on the Book of Mormon and DNA, Book of Mormon and DNA, and I must say, I'm rather disappointed. Look, I'm an engineer. I'm used to the practical. I also was involved with LDS apologetics for a time. I know the arguments. I didn't get too far into this before I noticed some problems.

The first most noticeable one was in the fouth paragraph, It hinted at agreement on the predominant theory that American Indians were from the land bridge from Alaska. The DNA is very conclusive of that. The issue is, by agreeing with that, the simple act of agreement, means that the foundations of the LDS Church are washed away. They came to America 16 to 14 thousand years ago. That throws the Adam/Eve story under the bus. The Tower of Babel, Noah's flood, Joseph Smith's and his successors' pronouncements about the Lamanites, Doctrine and Covenants 77, Most of the Pearl of Great Price...etc., all go away. You declare the world older than 7000 years old, and you don't have a prophet anymore.

The second issue came in the Fifth paragraph.

The Book of Mormon provides little direct information about cultural contact between the peoples it describes and others who may have lived nearby. Consequently, most early Latter-day Saints assumed that Near Easterners or West Asians like Jared, Lehi, Mulek, and their companions were the first or the largest or even the only groups to settle the Americas

That directly contradicts the Book of Mormon.

2 Nephi 1:9 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.

 I didn't go much further. Like I said, I know the arguments. They don't work. They simply don't work.

I won't go on much further, as I can let others speak to it more plainly.

MormonDiscussions Thread
Simon Southerton (He is a member that was excommunicated when he did his own DNA studies back in the 1990s and found that the science doesn't agree with the church's position.)
Doctrinal Drift and the Book of Mormon

One of the best responses I found on Facebook. Like a few other things, Facebook and the more recent people that have left the church have spawned some fascination responses to the church. I include the post below with the author's approval.

My take on the new DNA article.

Elder Oaks: "It is our position that secular evidence can neither prove nor disprove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon."

Well it certainly could prove the authenticity of the book. Just find Zarahemla with King Mosiah's inscribed tomb. Or find evidence of a highly literate American civilization that lasted about 1000 years and worshiped Jesus Christ, including a verbatim account of the Sermon on the Mount which they taught to their children and grandchildren in peace and prosperity for over 200 years. It would be very easy to prove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon via secular evidence if any secular evidence existed. Elder Oaks' statement seems to admit that such secular evidence will never be found. I agree. 

After hundreds of thousands of archeological digs in the Americas, from the Hudson Bay to Patagonia, from Bristol Bay to the Cape of Sao Roque there is not a single civilization that could be the Nephites. There was no literate civilization of millions of people who built major cities and had a developed written language including measurement system, currency system, legal system (with lawyers and judges), and a major proselytizing religion with a living scriptural tradition. 

While we will certainly uncover a new ruin next year, a new grave, a new village or city even, it is inconceivable that in all our searching mankind has overlooked an overlooked entire civilization of the size and maturity of the Nephites. 

Secular evidence will never prove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, not because it couldn't, but because it can't. It didn't happen. 

Now the religious teachings are another story. Nothing would make me happier than to see Church leaders take seriously the teachings of King Benjamin in Mosiah chapter 4 or Moroni's voice of warning set forth in Mormon chapter 8. I would like greater focus placed on the teachings of the book (in general), not less. I find the discussions of its historicity distract from its message. 

The Book of Mormon is scripture. So is the book of Genesis. The world wasn't created in 7 days and a flood never covered the entire earth. No guy named Lehi sailed with his family to the America's and had half his kids cursed with a skin of blackness and no highly literate society spent 200 years studying and living and teaching the New Testament sermons of Jesus in the western hemisphere. Just like the vast majority of Mormons don't have a problem appreciating Genesis while accepting it is nearly all fiction, the same should be true of the Book of Mormon. It is time for Mormonism to grow up and accept the reality of the situation. 

Some of my greatest heros are fictional--Alyosha from the Brothers Karamazov, Hugo's Jean Valjean, Steinbeck's Tom Joad and Abraham and Joseph and Moses too. I have no problem adding Joseph Smith's Alma the Younger and both Moronis to that illustrious list. No one should refuse to appreciate the Book of Mormon just because others believe the story literally happened--it would be like refusing to learn from Aslan of Narnia because some people believe there really are portal holes in the back of wardrobes into fantastic worlds of magic. Don't reject the good because of other people's mistaken beliefs. 

Specifically about this DNA article: 

1. Science is never done so reserve judgment.

This is true on its face, but inapplicable here. The fact that we don't know everything doesn't mean we don't know some things. We know from the DNA that there wasn't a population of millions of people in the Americas who came from Jerusalem in 400 BC. For sure. No question about it. 

2. There were other migrations of populations from Asia. 

Yes. Thanks for finally directly admitting it. My seminary teachers insisted that the "land bridge from Asia" theory was completely false and inspired by Satan to shake our faith. Really. 

On this point, I lost all faith in any Church published book last year when I found that the book Articles of Faith by Apostle James E. Talmage had been significantly altered on this point sometime between the first printing and the 1989 edition that I had as part of my missionary library. Talmage was absolutely certain in 1901 that the Nephites and Lamanites filled the whole of North America from east coast to west coast. Pseudo-Talmage in 1989 only says that a traditional belief was that Nephites spread into some part of North America. The book contains no note/forward/appendix/introduction saying that significant passages had been completely rewritten. This is considered completely dishonest without question in the publishing industry. (I wrote a post about this a few months back with exact quotes and page numbers.)

3. There are some very few middle eastern DNA markers, and scientists don't know when they were introduced. 

Yes. This a factually true statement. But we do know that they were not introduced by a single group in 600 BC who came to number in the millions. Again, the Church uses a legitimate scientific uncertainty to suggest an uncertainty that doesn't exist. No credible DNA scholar suggests that the trace amounts of middle eastern DNA found in native american populations could have been introduced as the Book of Mormon says they were introduced. 

4. Scientists believe that small migrations probably happened from time to time. 

Yes. It is almost certain that they did. But none of them created a highly educated and refined civilization numbering in the millions with highly advanced economic, legal, political, and religious structures. Citing a sole eskimo grave in Greenland hurts your argument, doesn't support it. 

5. The Founders Effect means that maybe we don't find the DNA evidence because Lehi, Ishmael, Zoram and all the males among the Mulekites had male ancestors that didn't come from the Middle East ala Perego's long lost male ancestor from East Asia. 

Not very likely. We are talking about at least a dozen men from Jerusalem here, some of them from the royal family. What are the odds that all of them, or even most of them, had a male founder with a different haplogroup than modern descendants from those Jerusalem people who stayed behind. This is silly.

Perego's DNA shows he is European with a distant male ancestor from East Asia. The DNA of modern Native Americans show they are Native Americans with distant East Asian ancestors. Modern Jews have DNA different than either Perego or modern Native Americans. 

So, yes, we don't know the Founders DNA for the Nephite/Mulekite men with certainty because we haven't found their graves. But for this argument to have any validity, we have to assume they were all, nor nearly all, from male lines that differed from the male lines of the Hebrews that stayed behind. This is really reaching for straws. 

6. A population bottleneck could have eliminated the Hebrew DNA. 

Yes it could have. But the scriptural record they say is historical doesn't record such an event. In fact the Lamanites are so numerous they cover the land at the death of Moroni. 

The massive deaths in the 15th Century just before and after European contact among native populations might have bottlenecked out Hebrew DNA evidence. But hundreds of genetic samples have been taken that pre-date the 15th Century population crash have been found and evaluated. They do not significantly alter the DNA picture we get from the living DNA. And none of them have come back Hebrew. 

7. Genetic drift could have hidden any trace of Hebrew DNA. 

The studies I have read say that the population with a dissapeared DNA trail must be very small for genetic drift to take it out. Notice the wording of the article: "When a small population mixes with a large one, combinations of autosomal markers typical of the smaller group become rapidly overwhelmed or swamped by those of the larger. The smaller group’s markers soon become rare in the combined population and may go extinct due to the effects of genetic drift and bottlenecks as described above." They never say how small the population has to be. According to the scientists, the population has to be smaller than it ever was for the Nephites/Lamanites/Mulekites. There were millions of Nephites/Lamanites/Mulekites spread out over thousands of miles. Genetic drift would have taken over a million years to wipe them out of the DNA record. This isn't a few dozen marbles in a jar we are talking about.

Conclusion: There are ambiguities in the DNA analysis. The ambiguities do not rise to the level where the Book of Mormon story is plausible as a history. No non-LDS DNA scientist is going to look at the data and conclude that the historicity of the book is likely. At best they will say it is difficult to prove the negative and by bad luck every male child of the Hebrew line might have died at childbirth in some generation and because they can't prove this tragedy didn't happen it is possible. But they won't be joining the Church on that chance. 

Elder Oaks' fear that secular evidence will never prove the Book of Mormon is well founded. His hope that secular evidence will never disprove the book's historicity is looking increasingly shaky every year as more and more data come in. 

It will be nice when we finally move on from the endless debates about historical veracity and appreciate the beauty in the teachings, just like we do with the Bible. A hundred years ago you would be in very serious trouble if you were to try to say out loud in Mormondom that the Book of Genesis was fictional. Now you would be in the majority of educated Mormons, including the Brethren (although they would prefer the term "metaphorical" to "fictional"). Hopefully it doesn't take us another hundred years to get to that point with the Book of Mormon. 

The fact that I spent a Friday night researching and writing this shows how pathetic and sad I still am, clinging to the frustration of a faith betrayed. I really am about ready to move on. Maybe this is my last hurrah.

https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies