LA Times article on DNA and the Book of Mormon...
 

By the way, apparently we're jolted.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...home-headlines

It is also right on the front page of the website www.latimes.com

For some this old news and a decision was already made, for others this is the beginning of some soul-searching.

I'll be interested to see the response of the church to this article. Most response will probably occur on a local level.

Also, don't you kind of feel bad for Southerton? His picture is reminiscent of certain shots of Michael Ballam.

Shoot. Where do I turn in my temple recommend?

Hugh Nibley was right: "The normal way of dealing with the Book of Mormon 'scientifically' has been first to attribute to the Book of Mormon something it did not say, and then to refute the claim by scientific statements that have not been proven" (Since Cumorah, 214).

I certainly don't think this lack of evidence is giving most Mormons the warm fuzzies.

Looks like these studies were done with mitochondrial DNA, which is ONLY inherited through the maternal line.

So when Nephi and his buds came over, did they and their descendants primarily marry people in their surrounds? No evidence of this in the BOM, but that would certainly dilute the mitochondrial DNA evidence. Also if there was a differential in survival between male and female descendants (i.e. females dying at a much higher rate than the males, for reasons that can only be speculative--war, genocide).

What could still be done is to look at Y chromosome transmissions. That takes away the maternal factor, and looks only at the paternal transmission.

Lack of evidence cannot disprove the BOM, but it certainly doesn't stengthen it, from a historical perspective. Certainly the idea that most Native Americans are direct descendants of Lehi and the other dudes (forgetting the name for the moment) is in the toilet.

I think evidence in the BoM points to ...
 

... Nephi, et al joining into larger populations of pre-existing groups of folk. John Sorenson wrote a very good article for FARMS a decade or so ago on this topic, and Brant Gardner wrote a good paper on it as well.

Do they have any DNA samples from around the time Lehi left? We know very little about DNA for this to be an end all conclusive point.

they can tell when populations diverged.....they do not need DNA from 600 B.C. They only need data from other peoples in the world, and then compare their divergence.

While a lack of evidence doesn't help...
 

there is certainly still plenty of room for a reasonable person to have faith in the Book of Mormon, as Mike shows in his post.

There are a number of good articles about DNA and the Book of Mormon here: http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai195.html and here are a number of articles by John Sorensen: http://farms.byu.edu/viewauthor.php?authorID=58

Some of these articles make my head spin with the mtDNA and others but they are good to read as they give a better understanding of the issue. Southerton and Murphy have seemingly made it their goal to take down all faith in the Book of Mormon based on their narrow view of the issue. They also focus on statements by church leaders and imply that such statements require that we believe all Native Americans are descendents of Lehi, when the text really implies a different view as Sorensen states.

I will say that the LA Times article at least gets quotes and perspectives from someone other that Southerton and the angry Peruvian. Still the negative focus is fairly typical. The writer does a good job of skewing the reader to believe that many, many Polynesians and Latinos are struggling/defecting.

How many who served in Polynesia or in Latin America or are Polynesian/Latin American had their descendency from Lehi as the foundation of their faith?

Also, I think this is the article Dan is referring to:

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=3

Interesting.

I find it disengenious when these folks condescendingly dismiss arguments for a limited geographical scope simply because "LDS tradition" traditionally envisioned a wider scope. A careful analysis of the locations/travel times/etc. in the BOM clearly point to a limited geographical region.

One more thought:

Anyone else see any irony in the fact that critics argue that the church should be "more honest" with its history and then cry foul when the church takes steps to highlight analysis that would indicate a limited scope for BOM peoples, even though that goes against prior statements/assumptions? Shouldn't that be applauded? I suspect anything short of "We were 100% wrong, sorry about that" will not suffice.

I am the first to admit there are numerous "problems" with the BOM, but there are plenty of flawed arguments/analyses on both sides.

Watercat ...
 

... the Sorenson article I was referring to is the one at the bottom of your last post. Also, here is a link to the Gardner article that I mentioned ... http://frontpage2000.nmia.com/~nahua...s/Interact.htm