Conference tecrus::mormonism

Hi Mark,

You've brought up an interesting topic!


>    Let's
>    also assume for the moment that the Incas/Mayans were the descendants
>    of some of these wandering Israelites.

This assumption isn't justified by the Book of Mormon.  The Book of Mormon
claims that the people of *that* history were from the mid-east, but it does
not claim that those people were the only people in the Americas.  In fact,
the BOM indicates that it is likely that there were other peoples here, because
the Nephites and Mulekites lived relatively close together for many years
without knowing of the others presence.

Information published in the National Geographic indicates that humans have
lived in the Americas since 30,000 BC, the early people coming from Asia.  
I think the assumption we should make is that the Jaredites and Nephites
& Lamanites merged in some way with the native peoples, causing a merging of the
cultures.  Thus, in our study of Archaeology we should investigate if both
mid-east and Asiatic influences are found rather than one or the other.

Several notes that are related to this topic are

     31 Evidence of the Book of Mormon
    137 Chiasms and the Book of Mormon
    155 Metals in Ancient America
    156 Parallels to the Book of Mormon

Allen

    Mark, 
    
    How about posting your reference to start with?  Thanks!
    
    Steve

    Well, my reference I *thought* was Mormon doctrine (i.e., the
    BOM).....perhaps I misread it?
    
    My understanding of Mormon doctrine was that the "good guys" in
    the Book of Mormon founded the Incan/Mayan civilization because
    supposedly archaeological links could be found between the folks
    who built the Pyramids of Egypt and the Mayan temples. The "bad
    guys" on the other hand were the Lamanites who were the principal
    descendants of the American Indians.
    
    What I remain unsure of is verifiable Semitic ancestry in American
    Indians, especially since most anthropologists today agree that they
    crossed over a land bridge from Asia. If that is the case, their
    Semitic origins would be questionable, would they not?
    
    I liken this to the attempts by the Creationists to justify their
    belief that humans coexisted with dinosaurs; thus, they look for evidence
    of human and dinosaur fossils together.
    
    Regards,
    
    Mark

>    My understanding of Mormon doctrine was that the "good guys" in
>    the Book of Mormon founded the Incan/Mayan civilization because
>    supposedly archaeological links could be found between the folks
>    who built the Pyramids of Egypt and the Mayan temples. The "bad
>    guys" on the other hand were the Lamanites who were the principal
>    descendants of the American Indians.
    
The Book of Mormon does not identify its peoples or geography sufficiently
well that we can correlate them with peoples and geography of the Americas;
any attempts to correlate them is personal opinion.

There are interesting parallels in the dates between the Nephite civilization
and the Mayan civilization (see note 156.1), but they are parallels only and
don't "prove" anything.  If there is a correlation between the Nephites &
Lamanites and the Mayans, it would be with both the Nephites & the Lamanites
because the Nephites were dead before the classic period of the Mayans really
got going.  The Incas are later, and any correlation with them would have to
be with the Lamanites only.

We do believe that the American Indians are related in some way to the
BOM people, but we have no idea how much of a relation there is.  You and I
both agree that there were people in the Americas thousands of years before
the Jaredites came here, and it is reasonable to assume that those people
have continued down to the present time.  Thus, from a LDS viewpoint, the
present day Indians would be mixtures of the original people and the BOM
people.

>    What I remain unsure of is verifiable Semitic ancestry in American
>    Indians, especially since most anthropologists today agree that they
>    crossed over a land bridge from Asia. If that is the case, their
>    Semitic origins would be questionable, would they not?
    
Only if one assumes that no later migrations had occurred.  There are non-LDS
who believe that ocean migrations to the Americas did occur (see note 156.4).

Allen

    I remember reading a study of the American Indian which linked it
    to Semitic origin based on studies of head shapes and such.  I'll
    see if I can locate anything.  That was some years ago.  (Speaking
    of genetics, do anthopologists have an explanation for why American
    Indians don't have beards?  Just curious ...)  By the way, the
    reference I was asking about would have to do with the genetic links
    to Asia.  As has been pointed out, it is likely that other people
    inhabited the New World besides those currently recorded.  This is 
    implied in the B of M (2 Nephi 1:6-7, 3 Nephi 16:1-3).  Genetic
    links to Asia would not be in conflict with the B of M, being a
    people led to the land by the Lord.  Could it be assumed that there
    was a genetic mix?
    
    Could it also be that there is a mix of genetics, perhaps even before
    Asians crossed the land bridge?  I'm just speculating ...
    
    Steve

>The Book of Mormon does not identify its peoples or geography sufficiently
>well that we can correlate them with peoples and geography of the Americas;
>any attempts to correlate them is personal opinion.
 
    Another thing to remember, is that the surface of the land changed here
    and around Jerusalem when the Saviour was crucified.  The high places
    were made low and the low places were made high, etc.  That would also
    make it difficult to try to correlate locations of today with locations
    as they were in ancient times.  I suspect that their were other places
    besides here and Jerusalem, where the topographical features were
    changed. 
    
    Also, the scriptures hint at the possibility of the all the land
    on the earth being one big land mass prior to the flood.  I don't
    remember the scripture reference, but it is in Genesis somewhere.
                                                                  
    With people speculating about a land bridge, isn't it possible that
    people could have gone the other way, from the America's to Russia?
    Just a thought.  This speculation of a land bridge brings to my mind a
    question, is the land bridge thought to be frozen and only in existance
    part of the time or is it actual land that went from one continent to
    another?
    
    scott 

    Re .4:
    
    If you can't correlate peoples and geography in the Book of Mormon,
    which according to Mormon doctrine is THE Word of God, then what is
    your source for the accuracy of the prophecies of Joseph Smith et.
    al.?
    
    Did I miss something somewhere?
    
    Mark

    According to the B of M, it is an abridgment of a larger set of
    records (title page, Helaman 3:14-16, 3 Nephi 5:8-9) and they have
    left out details that had little to do with the religious purposes of 
    the book (1 Nephi 19:1-6).  So, the geographical details and such
    are intentionally sketchy.  The B of M was not intended to be full
    of those kinds of details, and it isn't. 
    
    Steve

Mark,

I'm not sure I understand the point you are making; perhaps you can help me
with it?  

If the Book of Mormon is true, then obviously there has to be a correlation
with its geography and the real earth, recognizing that the destruction at
the time of Christ's death changed many physical features of the land as
Scott pointed out.  However, unless the BOM describes its geography in terms
that we can recognize, then this correlation may be difficult to understand.

Today, we have a world view of the earth.  We have world maps, satellite
pictures, etc., that describe the "whole picture" of what countries and
continents look like.  In contrast to this, the Nephites had a very limited
view of their surroundings.  They talked about cities a "days journey away",
or rivers or the sea that were close by, or a "narrow neck of land".  These
terms are all terms that are relative to each other and make it difficult to
correlate them with our view of geography.  The phrase "narrow neck of land"
is one of the more explicit terms in BOM geography, and there are at least two
interpretations of that phrase that are plausible.

John Sorenson of BYU has studied BOM geography in terms of modern-day geography
and has come up an interesting match, but as I said before, his results are
speculation.  He had to make a number of assumptions as he developed his
algorithm, and I expect that others would disagree on those assumptions.  His
book is "An Ancient American Setting For The Book Of Mormon" and is jointly
published by Deseret Book in Salt Lake City and F.A.R.M.S in Provo, Utah, 1985.

Allen

    Re:  Note 226.6  I'm amazed that our Lord who came not to judge
    the world but to save it would cause horrible earthquakes etc.
    to occur in America causing the deaths of thousands of people
    and the destruction of cities as a result of his death on the cross.
    There were earth tremors in Jerusalem, I understand, and the only
    other act of violence was the ripping of the curtain in the temple
    signifying the end of the Old Covenant and the beginning of the
    New.  There was also three hours of darkness - not three days, per
    the Book of Mormon.  But whole cities being swallowed up by the
    sea and land, fires and tempests?  People dying violently all over
    the place?  HIS CRUCIFIXION WAS NOT A JUDGEMENT BUT A SACRAFICE!
    
    From one who chirps every once in a while.

    Re: Note 227.10 by RIPPLE::TOOZE_MI

    Hi Minden!
    
    Destruction of wicked cities by God is not unprecedented. For example,
    consider Sodom and Gomorrah, the great flood, and the commandment
    from the Lord to Jonah to warn the people of Ninevah. In each case
    the people were wicked, and were warned of impending destruction
    by prophets of God. So it was with the wicked cities that were
    destroyed as described in the Book of Mormon.

    Witnessing of Christ,
    Rich

   from 192.14  (Ed Cox)
 >       In conclusion to this I will add one  of  my own observations
 >   that  has  come  to  light in the time since  the  MoM  book  was
 >   published.  In the past few years, the science of genetic tracing
 >   has been developed to the point where it is possible to establish
 >   genetic ancestry with  extreme  precision.    This   has  made it
 >   possible to prove once  and for all that the American Indians are
 >   decended  from  East  Asian/Chinese stock  and  NOT  from  Middle
 >   Eastern  or  even  European lineage.   I  am  not  aware  of  any
 >   competent  scientist  who seriously contests these findings.    I
 >   don't think I need to explain the significance  of this to anyone
 >   with an LDS background!

  from 192.16 (Rich Kotter)
 �   I am not familiar with the research that you have mentioned, though I
 �   find it very interesting. However, I will say that Mormons do not say
 �   that the Book of Mormon peoples were the only ones who lived upon the
 �   Americas, nor do we assert that all of the American Indians are
 �   descended only from Lehi's family and those who accompanied them from
 �   the land of Jerusalem. 
 �   
 �   Thus, questions are raised about which Indians have been found to be
 �   descendants of Asian stock, and have they been descended only from this
 �   lineage, or does the heritage of some Indians include Isrealite
 �   genetics, perhaps mixed with that of other peoples? To answer this, of
 �   course, all Indian groups would have to be tested. 
   
  Coincidentally enough, I am presently enrolled in a Genetics course at
  Harvard University (Extension), taught by a Postdoctoral Research Fellow
  on Harvard's faculty. I spoke with him about genetic tracing being used
  to determine the origin of the American Indian, and he was quite familiar
  with research done in that area. According to him, it has been proven
  beyond question that the American Indian's origins are Oriental, due not
  only to actual genetic tracings, but also due to simple phenotypical
  similarities between Orientals and American Indians not shared by other
  non-oriental groups. If any Indians had possessed Semitic genotypes, this 
  would have been discovered.

  Thus, as reasonable as Rich's questions may seem, there is really no room
  to speculate that even some American Indian groups were originally descended
  from Israelites. To insist otherwise would only be an appeal to obfuscation.
 
  Ed (Preston)

    Relative to the genetic typing of American Indians:
    
    Linguistically, however, the San Blas Indians, off the cost of Panama,
    are known to speak a language which is a derivative of Hebrew.

    re .18
    
    I'd sure like to hear more about THAT! 
    
    And what does that have to do with genetics, BTW?
    
    Ed
    

    Ed:
       
    My entry has nothing to do with genetics.  I positioned it as another
    perspective, but from those in the LINGUISTICS field.
    
    Linguistics is the study of language.

RE: < Note 192.17,19 by CASV02::PRESTON >

>                    -< Sounds pretty far-fetched to me... >-

What sounds pretty far-fetched to *me* is that every single last Native
American is without question of Oriental descent. I thought that
anthropologists (yet another perspective) had concluded that the Americas
had been rediscovered many times throughout the eons; that Christopher
Columbus was a very late comer to the scene.

/kevin

   Yes Paul, I do realize that linguistics is the study of language.
   Perhaps it was a little flip of me to word that the way that
   I did. Just the same, it still sounds like quite a remarkable claim, 
   and one that should be backed up with some sort of references.

   Re .21,

 > What sounds pretty far-fetched to *me* is that every single last Native
 > American is without question of Oriental descent. I thought that
 > anthropologists (yet another perspective) had concluded that the Americas
 > had been rediscovered many times throughout the eons; that Christopher
 > Columbus was a very late comer to the scene.

   /kevin, 

   I am familiar with your mention of repeated discoveries of America. There
   is evidence that Vikings were here before Columbus, for instance, but 
   they did not stay, unlike other Vikings who founded an ancient city or two 
   in Ireland and contributed to the genetic makeup of the present-day
   Irish. Discovery is one thing, settling and proliferating is another. If
   an explorer or two impregnated some Indian maidens, then left, of course
   the offspring would have different genetic makeup from other Indians.
   As oddities, they would likely have been shunned by others and possibly 
   not even reproduce due to their negative social status. Their impact 
   on the genetic makup of the Indian race would be nil in any case.
   
   Various races exhibit certain phenotypically characteristic traits that
   distinguish them from other races. A phenotype is the manifestation of a
   genotype, or actual combination of genes. Some of these are readily
   observable, like eye or hair color, and others require more work, like
   HLA blood type, which can be complex, and, incidentally, is also
   indicative of one's racial ancestry. 
   
   The Mormon claim that American Indians are descended from Israelites is
   simply unsupportable genetically. To try to salvage the idea by saying 
   that maybe *some* of them were, is, in my opinion, grasping at straws. 
   If you are descended from a certain race, your genetic makeup will 
   clearly show it, and the Indian's ancestors were Oriental.
   
   Speaking of anthropology, in the 1800's one of the more popular theories
   of the origin of Indians was that they were one of the "lost tribes" of
   Israel. Perhaps that's where Joseph Smith got the idea. 
   
   Ed
   

    Now you've got me curious.  How did the oriental people get to where
    they are now?
    
    The whole human race had to start from one place and then leave
    and populate other parts of the earth.
    
    The info about genetics is interesting.
    
    
    scott
    

    I have a couple of problems with putting too much faith in 
    the claims from genetics.  One has to do with genetic tracing 
    as an inexact science.  The other has to do with the sampling
    methods apparently being used.

    First, the sampling of the Semitic population according to the B of M 
    is very small.  I learned in my statistics classes that sample
    sizes can have a lot to do with results.  If you have a small sample
    size, your results can be greatly skewed.  As far as Lehi and gang were 
    concerned, we're talking about a very small sample of the Israelite 
    population.  How much Oriental blood was in Lehi and the others?  We 
    don't know, but it would be ridiculous to assume that the Orientals had 
    no association or genetic similarities with the people of the Old 
    Testament.  (The Bible does refer to people from the east in the Old and 
    New Testaments, but I don't know how 'east' that is.)  The question of
    there being related blood lines may even become moot when you consider 
    that if the Orientals decended from Noah there is nearly half of the
    time from Noah (about 2000 BC) to Lehi (about 600 BC or about 1400 years) 
    than from Lehi to present day (about 2600 years).  I suspect that genetic
    information was not as divergent at Lehi's day as it is now.  So, a
    small sample of ether population might well be void of genetic 
    differences.
    
    Second, I get a bit leary when I hear broad statements about what 'all'
    scientists believe - especially when sciences are inexact.  I am not 
    all that familiar with genetics or archaeology.  But, I have studied 
    a little quantum physics - enough to be a bit skeptical when you get into
    the really wild stuff.  In this science, you have to believe in
    things like the square root of negative one if you want to get
    anywhere.  You have to allow a number to approach infinity to prove
    certain things.  This leads to things like e=mc�.  Some people believe
    that equation to be very exact.  But, scientists know that it is
    not.  The equation is pretty much accepted by scientists, but they
    do not believe it to be truth.  More exact versions of the equation
    have many more terms.  Even this is not regarded as truth.  That's
    one reason why there is a lot of work being done to generate a unified
    field theory.  For us to accept e=mc� as truth because it is accepted
    by most scientists would be folly.

    I would understand if geneticists accepted that all Indians were
    Oriental and not Semetic, but I would be highly skeptical if they 
    accepted this as truth.  Rather, it is probably the best explanation
    for now and is an inexact conclusion.  My guess is that this conclusion 
    is based on large samples and does not eliminate the possible effects of 
    small samples from the Semetic population from 2600 years ago and earlier.


    Steve

    Re: Note 192.22 by CASV05::PRESTON

    Hi Ed,
    
    My educational background is in the physical sciences and, in the
    course of my studies and since, one of the things that has constantly
    amused me is propensity of some people, including many scientists, to
    take a teaspoon full of empirical evidence, and stir it together with a
    truck load of speculation, and cook it into a product they promote as
    proven "fact". History shows us time and again where this has proven
    the folly of many. (By the way, the same thing can happen regarding
    "religious" evidence.) 
    
    I have no doubt that marvelous discoveries are being made in the area
    of genetics, and I heartily encourage them to continue. Truth, from
    whatever source is of great value. But I am quite sure that what we
    *don't* know about genetics is still much greater than what we *do*
    know. 
                                               
    If you tell me that, based on our current understanding of all the
    available genetic evidence, it appears that the aboriginal Americans
    were not descended from Semetic peoples, then I do not object. I will
    simply answer that perhaps all the evidence is not yet found or
    completely understood. 
    
    If you say that it is not possible for *some* of the pre-Columbian
    inhabitants of the Americas to have come from Semetic descent, then I
    will say that you have gone too far. The only way to prove such a claim
    false would be to have possession of a knowledge of all truth. Which
    neither you, nor I, nor all the world's scientists has. Only God has
    that. I'm more prepared to accept what God has to say on the subject
    than all of the rest put together. Even so, I am interested to know
    what the current scientific thinking is. I'm confident that eventually
    the scientific understanding will converge with what God has revealed. 
    
    When the genetic research that you referred to was done, were they able
    to determine the genetic descent of those tested back to Adam?
    Theoretically, all samples tested should have been traceable back to
    such a common origin. If not, then are we to conclude that Adam could
    not have been the "first flesh", just because the scientists did not
    find such evidence? 
                           
    Also, the Book of Mormon carries a strong case that a genetic change of
    some kind took place in the Lamanites, when he changed their skin
    color. God could well have effected such a change. Since the Nephites
    were pretty well wiped out, the genetic testing would have been done on
    the descendants of the Lamanites, a possibly genetically altered race. 

    In Christ's Love,
    Rich

        Well, I  did not anticipate that the topic of genetics would get so
        much attention.   When  I added that comment, the information I had
        was out on loan to someone and I did not include any references.  I
        have it back now and will list two references for anyone wishing to
        look it up (or I could xerox and send through the mail).
        
        The first article I have is from the Boston Globe Sci-Tech section,
        dated August 4, 1886.  This is  actually  a  very  good article and
        goes  into  some  depth  into  the significance of  the  analytical
        method.
        
        The second article I have is from Newsweek, dated  January 11, 1988
        which deals with the broader topic of searching for "Adam and Eve".
        
        The  thrust  of  these  articles,  and  the  course of the  genetic
        investigation, is that there is a kind of DNA which is  only handed
        down from mother to daughter (in the mitochondria) and is therefore
        NOT confounded  by  simple  or complex sexual encounters within the
        herediary family tree.  Random mutation is found to occur at fairly
        predictable rates which then  become  marker posts through history.
        Mixing of genetic families can  be  traced and is not lost.  People
        which share a common fork in the family tree WILL ALL share some of
        the common genetic markings.  Similarly, people  who do not share a
        lower fork in the tree (all share in  it  at  some point!) will NOT
        have  the  genetic marking peculiar to the time span  between  when
        they actually diverged and the present time.  It is  on  this basis
        that accurate tracing of ancestry can be determined.  IF ANY Jewish
        blood were in the genes of the indians, it would have to show up.
        
        A  side  point  of interest is that this analysis method is totally
        immune  to  any effect from the male side!  Therefore, even if some
        Jewish or  Viking  men  did  come  over and intermingle with people
        already here, they  would not be detected, or be confused into this
        genetic tracing.  It requires that a female be included.  Also they
        have been able to be  so accurate that they HAVE been able to trace
        the separate genetic pathway all the  way  back  to one, or at most
        several females from which we are all decended.  They jokingly call
        her  EVE,  but  get  very uncomfortable if anyone  takes  them  too
        seriously (typical worldly scientist).
        
        I therefore do  not  see how the Mormon claim for the origin of the
        American indian can be  taken seriously.  Correct me if I am wrong,
        but I do not recall  the BoM leaving any alternate to the origin of
        ALL the indians and I also  do  not  recall  any reference to other
        peoples already being here or arriving latter  that  would still be
        remaining  during the post-BoM time frame.  What  is  left  of  the
        original assertion of the origin af the indians if you now say that
        none  of  those people of Jewish ancestry are still around.    This
        seems to be one of many points I have discussed with  Mormons  over
        time that slowly fade into the realm of blind faith due to  lack of
        evidence.   I  am  curious,  why  is the heading in this conference
        "Intellignece is the Glory of God" (or something to that effect) if
        intellignece is seemingly abandoned  in  all  such  areas  of  your
        faith?
        
        - Ed
        

	At what date, if anywhere, do Jewish and Oriental bloodlines meet?
	Is it before Noah (before 2500 BC)?  After Noah and before Lehi 
	(2500 - 600 BC)?  After Lehi (600 BC to present)?  

	Steve

Hi Ed,

>        I therefore do  not  see how the Mormon claim for the origin of the
>        American indian can be  taken seriously.  Correct me if I am wrong,
>        but I do not recall  the BoM leaving any alternate to the origin of
>        ALL the indians and I also  do  not  recall  any reference to other
>        peoples already being here or arriving latter  that  would still be
>        remaining  during the post-BoM time frame.

You've brought up an important point.  I think we need to differentiate between
the claims of the Book of Mormon and the inaccurate claims that Mormon people
in their zeal (and unclear thinking) have propagated.

I grew up in Utah with the idea that *all* indians were descendants from the
BOM people, and even as a missionary 30 years ago, I used the Mayan ruins as a
way of starting conversations about the BOM.  However, the BOM does not claim
that *all* indians are descendants from Jared/Lehi.  In fact, it doesn't claim
that any of the indians are descendants from Jared/Lehi.  The BOM only tells the
story of two major and one minor migrations to the American continents.  It
makes no claims that other migrations did not occur, and it makes no claims that
there were not people already in the American continents when those migrations
occurred.  

The BOM does suggest that the Nephites lived in a relatively local area and
that they had a narrow understanding of who was populating that land; the
Mulekites migrated after Lehi and lived not too far away from the Nephites for
many generations before the two peoples discovered each other.  Thus, it is
reasonable to expect that there may have been other peoples living in adjacent
areas who were not known to the Nephites.

From science, we know that people have been in the Americas for 30,000 years
or so.  There are also scientific evidences that migrations occurred to the
Americas.  Both scenarios are very compatible with the BOM view of the
Americas, and the BOM view is (in my opinion) very compatible with both of
those scientific views.

>        I  am  curious,  why  is the heading in this conference
>        "Intellignece is the Glory of God" (or something to that effect) if
>        Intellignece is seemingly abandoned  in  all  such  areas  of  your
>        faith?
        
The phrase "The Glory of God is Intelligence" is taken from the D & C.  One
aspect of "intelligence" is that one avoids premature judgments, and I think
that many LDS as well as our critics (including Martin in his book) are guilty
of making such judgments.  We have to realize that the scientific view is not
set in concrete and is always expanding as scientists perform their research.
Thus, we should avoid being dogmatic in drawing conclusions from the set of
knowledge that our scientists presently have.  We definitely should be aware of
and understand their research, but we must always remember that future research
will increase our understanding of things.  For example, the information I
posted from John Sorenson on metals in ancient America brings out that 
scientific research does now have evidence that the ancient Americans did
use iron while a few years ago that knowledge was not known to the scientists.

Allen

   Re .24:

>    I have a couple of problems with putting too much faith in 
>    the claims from genetics.  One has to do with genetic tracing 
>    as an inexact science.  The other has to do with the sampling
>    methods apparently being used.

Could you be more specific? How is genetic tracing "inexact"? From my 
admittedly amateur perspecive, genetics - especially in the area of 
tracing - is one of the most exacting sciences there is. Basically, it 
is the science of inheritance. Offspring, whether they are bacteria, pea 
plants or humans, inherit their genetic makeup from their parents. It 
only makes sense that you cannot inherit what your ancestors did not have, 
and you can only inherit what they did have. Genetic tracing looks for 
markers (phenotype and genotype) that are peculiar to certain groups of 
people in order to determine ancestry. 

Mormons claim that Indians are descended from Israelites, which would 
make them Semitic. We would expect some mutations to have occurred over 
time, but the ancestral markers would be there just the same. Your idea of 
statistical sampling really doesn't have much relevance, because, no 
matter how small the number you start out with, the rules of inheritance 
are the same, you can only inherit what your parents had. The only other 
source of genetic variations is mutations, which do occur from time to 
time, but are isolated instances.

 >  ...but it would be ridiculous to assume that the Orientals had 
 >  no association or genetic similarities with the people of the Old 
 >  Testament.  

If you can prove that Israelites in Jeremiah's time had extensive contact
with and intermingled with Orientals, then maybe you'd have a basis for
your speculation, but that would require going far beyond what is known
from history and anthropology, though I'll leave it at that. Another
point to consider is the extensive geneologies kept by the ancient
Israelites, especially the priests, which trace their ancestry back to
Abraham, the father of the race. No Oriental blood there. I am not 
assuming that Orientals have *no* genetic similarities with the people of 
the Old Testament. As a matter of fact, they have a great deal in common, 
not only with OT peoples, but everyone else in the world. What we all have 
in common is far greater than what is different (like five fingers on 
each hand, etc), but the differences are telling, and that is what 
genetic tracing is all about.

 > The question of there being related blood lines may even become moot when
 > you consider that if the Orientals decended from Noah there is nearly
 > half of the time from Noah (about 2000 BC) to Lehi (about 600 BC or about
 > 1400 years) than from Lehi to present day (about 2600 years). 

I'm not sure what your point is, but if you consider that Noah's sons 
went off in different directions to repopulate the earth, it is not too 
much to assume that their genetic makup was the basis for the various 
races, and that any mutations occurring early on would have more impact 
in distinguising one race from another.
    
 >   I would understand if geneticists accepted that all Indians were
 >   Oriental and not Semetic, but I would be highly skeptical if they 
 >   accepted this as truth.

Your comments on quantum physics are well taken, but I'm not sure you have 
made a clear distiction between "accepting" something and "accepting" the 
same something "as truth". Why would you accept something you didn't 
believe was true? I hope this is not the same attitude you take towards 
the Book of Mormon, because it doesn't make much sense. Maybe I didn't 
understand your explanation. Also, I think it is erroneous to take 
an example from theoretical physics and try to make a case for the 
inaccuracy of genetics. They just aren't the same

 > My guess is that this conclusion is based on large samples and does not
 > eliminate the possible effects of small samples from the Semetic
 > population from 2600 years ago and earlier. 

If, the basis for the claim of the Indian's descent from Israelites is a
small population of Semites mingled into a much larger population of
non-Israelites 2600 years ago, then their status as descendents of Jews 
doesn't exist, because they would have long ago lost their racial 
identity to the larger race of Indians they mingled with. Besides, the 
Book of Mormon says their skin was darkened by God, and they thus became 
the American Indians. No mention of mingling with another group is 
mentioned.

    Re .25                

 > ...one of the things that has constantly amused me is propensity of some
 > people, including many scientists, to take a teaspoon full of empirical
 > evidence, and stir it together with a truck load of speculation, and cook
 > it into a product they promote as proven "fact". 

Is that what I'm doing, Rich? Or is that just your opinion of genetic 
research?
    
 >  I have no doubt that marvelous discoveries are being made in the area
 >  of genetics, and I heartily encourage them to continue. Truth, from
 >  whatever source is of great value. But I am quite sure that what we
 >  *don't* know about genetics is still much greater than what we *do*
 >  know. 

Well, if you're hoping that what we *don't* know about genetics will 
eventually invalidate everything that we *do* know about genetics, and 
therefore make the present knowledge of genetics of no value (including
the topic of our discussion), then I think you are willingly ignorant of
the subject and also in for a very long wait. 

 >   If you tell me that, based on our current understanding of all the
 >   available genetic evidence, it appears that the aboriginal Americans
 >   were not descended from Semetic peoples, then I do not object. I will
 >   simply answer that perhaps all the evidence is not yet found or
 >   completely understood. 

I have a feeling that if genetic evidence proved otherwise, your attitude 
would be different.
    
 >   If you say that it is not possible for *some* of the pre-Columbian
 >   inhabitants of the Americas to have come from Semetic descent, then I
 >   will say that you have gone too far. The only way to prove such a claim
 >   false would be to have possession of a knowledge of all truth. Which
 >   neither you, nor I, nor all the world's scientists has. Only God has
 >   that. I'm more prepared to accept what God has to say on the subject
 >   than all of the rest put together. Even so, I am interested to know
 >   what the current scientific thinking is. I'm confident that eventually
 >   the scientific understanding will converge with what God has revealed. 

Even if *some* pre-Columbian Americans somehow had Semitic roots, they 
have not been found, and the American Indians, which the Mormons Church 
claims are descended from Semites are *not* these people, therefore the 
Mormon Church is mistaken about their ancestry.
    
 >   When the genetic research that you referred to was done, were they able
 >   to determine the genetic descent of those tested back to Adam?
 >   Theoretically, all samples tested should have been traceable back to
 >   such a common origin. If not, then are we to conclude that Adam could
 >   not have been the "first flesh", just because the scientists did not
 >   find such evidence? 

Are you trying to discredit genetics by coming up with such a ridiculous 
qualification? If genetics can prove that a group of people possesses
genetic markers common to one race and not another, how does Adam enter 
into the picture? Are you concluding that because there are some things 
that genetic research cannot prove, that it therefore cannot prove anything?

 >   Also, the Book of Mormon carries a strong case that a genetic change of
 >   some kind took place in the Lamanites, when he changed their skin
 >   color. God could well have effected such a change. Since the Nephites
 >   were pretty well wiped out, the genetic testing would have been done on
 >   the descendants of the Lamanites, a possibly genetically altered race. 

If God changed the skin color of a group of people, and the change 
persisted in their offspring, then indeed a genetic change took place. 
You are hoping for an awful lot, however, because in addition to the 
darkened skin, numerous other genetic changes would have had to take place 
that changed them into Orientals in the process, changes that have 
nothing to do with skin color.

Ed

    
    Please let me jump in and muddy things just a little. I think there
    is a little too much generalization here, especially with regard
    to terms like 'semitic' and 'Israelite'. For instance, Lehi (and
    therefore his descendants) were of the lineage of Mannassah, one
    of the sons of Joseph. Now Mannassah's mother, as I recall, was
    Egyptian (or at least not of Israel). Of course, Lehi's party also
    contained others not of his family - Laban's servant and Ishmael's
    family - people of unknown lineage. Then, Lehi's people intermingled
    with the Mulekite's and even some of the Nephites at one time sailed
    off and returned. After the elimination of the Nephites, hundreds
    of years passed within which the Lamanites could have mingled with
    many other unrelated groups, as they continue to do to this day.
    I am more ready to believe the Book of Mormon history *for the period
    and people that it concerned itself with* than with the ability
    of modern geneticists to sort out the markers with absolute certainty.
    
    One more non-genetic nit - I believe that the definition of 'Orient'
    technically includes the Middle East and that historically, if not
    genetically, the middle-eastern people have often been referred
    to as Orientals.
    
    /sad
    
    
    
    

    HM!  What you say is very interesting, Ed, about genetics stating that
    the American Indians are all Oriental.  I am not a geneticist, nor have
    any information in that arena.  Mormons DO NOT CLAIM that all American
    Indians are semitic.  Rather the claim is as Steve Sherman has said
    that the Book of Mormon tells the story of ancient semitic tribes,
    often very small in number, living in this hemisphere.  These tribes
    died or were killed off and it is unclear if these tribes intermarried
    with other local natives. If they were true to ancient Israelite
    customs, intermarriage with "Gentiles" might have been taboo, thus
    creating a very in-bred society whose genetic code and markers could
    have died out with them.
    
    I would like to hear from someone knowledgeable/trained in genetics who
    could add some more light.  Is there such a person?  
    
    I see a conflict between genetics and anthropology because Thor Heyerdahl
    established the cultural links between Egypt and South America with the
    voyage of RA 2. Other anthropologists and archeologists have also
    established such linkages, such as C. Vance right here at Brandeis U.,
    who discovered Phoenician settlements in Brazil.
    
    I am searching for the linguistic studies I had about the language
    connections between South American indian  dialects and Hebrew.
    
    So, does any geneticist out there have more information which might
    help to settle the question in my mind about the conflict in what Ed
    says the geneticists say and what I have read from the antropologists?
    
    Paul
                                                                          

Howdy, Ed!

>Could you be more specific? How is genetic tracing "inexact"? From my 

I do not have access to a formal definition of exact versus inexact science,
but I will try to convey my understanding of the terms.

An exact science might be something like basic chemistry.  The theories 
presented here have to do with matter and can be verified in the lab.  Or, 
another might be biology.  Again, the theories can be tested through 
experiments that can be repeated and evidence observed.  Classical physics is 
the same way.  Each of these examples is, of course, a simplification.  I 
might define an exact science as one where the theories can be proven through 
repeatable experiments that invoke the phenomenons in question.

How is an inexact science defined?  In archaeology, they take what evidence 
they have and try to make some sense of it.  What keeps it from being exact 
is that you can't go back in time to actually see what happened.  You can do
a few experiments to try to establish models (as can be done with carbon
dating), but you can't actually go back in time and repeat history.  The 
'experiment' has already been done and cannot be repeated.  The same goes
for genetic tracing.  True, you can do some experiments and show genetic
tracing principles in action.  But, the implications that stretch over many
years cannot be directly verified.  Again, the 'experiment' has been done once 
and cannot be repeated.  

The distinction does not mean that scientific methods are not used or that 
judgements are purely qualitative.  I think it is akin to doing research and 
using secondary versus primary sources.  Without access to primary sources, 
one is left to the interpretations of those who have access to those sources.  
That's okay if that limit is understood, but can lead to erroneous results if 
secondary sources are confused with primary.  Also, I think that it is hard
to say that a science is strictly exact or inexact, since each science seems
to combine elements of each.

But, as to genetic tracing, there is no way scientists will be able to verify
how genetics trace back several thousand years because they were not there.
They can only speculate based on current evidence.  If more evidence
turns up or new interpretations gain credence, they could radically change 
their minds about what happened.  That's true of any science, exact or inexact.
But, they can't verify the 'experiment' because it could only be done once.

>Mormons claim that Indians are descended from Israelites, which would 
>make them Semitic. We would expect some mutations to have occurred over 
>time, but the ancestral markers would be there just the same. Your idea of 
>statistical sampling really doesn't have much relevance, because, no 
>matter how small the number you start out with, the rules of inheritance 
>are the same, you can only inherit what your parents had. The only other 
>source of genetic variations is mutations, which do occur from time to 
>time, but are isolated instances.

The relevence requires understanding of the implications of small samples of a 
population and how that limits the interpretation of results.  One of the 
questions I have posed has to do with the possibility of a genetic bridge 
between the Orient and the Israelites having occurred relatively shortly 
before Lehi came over.  I know of no way to either prove or disprove that 
Lehi's wife carried Oriental markers now detected.  That she could have traced 
her lineage to common lineage with Orientals is a possibility since there were 
apparent interactions with people from the east according to the Scriptures.  
Israelites were sometimes known to take wives from other nations, so this is a 
real possibility.

If the science claims that these traits are passed down from mother to daughter,
and at the same time claims that all Israelitish women have traits not shared
with other nations, this seems to me a glaring inconsistence.  Small population
samples could account for this inconsistence, but the impact of such samples
needs to be understood before coming to broad conclusions about the populations.
Another possibility is that women of nations were never mixed with women of
other nations.  But, the Scriptures and other history indicate that such is
not the case.

>If you can prove that Israelites in Jeremiah's time had extensive contact
>with and intermingled with Orientals, then maybe you'd have a basis for
>your speculation, 

Extensive contact would probably be the only way to substantiate the validity 
of using small samples.  What I am saying is that the contact may not have been 
extensive.  This is in line with history and would likely not have shown up in
small samples.  For example, women taken as wives from a conquered nation tend 
to remain a small minority within the conquering nation.  The contact would be 
nearly obscure when the genetic information is dispersed through several 
conquering nations.  The burden of proof that there are some Oriental markers 
that are not shared with Israelites requires the justification of small 
samples of the Israelite and Oriental nations as being representative of the 
whole of Israelite or Oriental nations, both present and preceding generations.
So, it is practically assured that any genetic sampling will be small and 
results inexact.

I do not believe that scientists will be able to prove that Oriental markers 
are not found in any of the Israelites and that they never have been.  This 
would require sampling from every female line of Israelite or Oriental that 
ever existed.  To come to such a conclusion may well disprove the theory 
unless it can account for women who have migrated between nations and whose 
traits were passed to their daughters.  Then again, I've not read the complete
theory.

>from history and anthropology, though I'll leave it at that. Another
>point to consider is the extensive geneologies kept by the ancient
>Israelites, especially the priests, which trace their ancestry back to
>Abraham, the father of the race. No Oriental blood there. I am not 

There's the biggest rub.  The geneaologies tend to trace through male lines.  
The genetics trace through female lines.  It's like apples and oranges because
female Oriental lineage would tend to not show up in the geneaologies but it
could show up in the genetics.  The only evidence we have for a lot of it may 
have to do with records of conquest and female populations absorbed into 
nations.

> > The question of there being related blood lines may even become moot when
> > you consider that if the Orientals decended from Noah there is nearly
> > half of the time from Noah (about 2000 BC) to Lehi (about 600 BC or about
> > 1400 years) than from Lehi to present day (about 2600 years). 
>
>I'm not sure what your point is, but if you consider that Noah's sons 
>went off in different directions to repopulate the earth, it is not too 
>much to assume that their genetic makup was the basis for the various 
>races, and that any mutations occurring early on would have more impact 
>in distinguising one race from another.

As genetic changes occur gradually over time, it seems that more changes 
should have occurred from the time of Lehi to the present rather than from
the time of Noah to the time of Lehi.  In other words, if Orientals trace to
the time of Noah (which could well be as I understand that they have legends
that include the great flood), then genetically the Israelites and Orientals
may have been very close around 600 BC and diverged significantly since then.  
Hence, the differences observed now between Israelites and Orientals may have 
become more prominent since the time of Lehi.  But, this is an inexact 
conclusion since it is impractical to gather large samples of genetic 
information from any of the populations around 2000 BC, 600 BC or even 
present day.

I suspect that theories of genetic tracing imply changes that occurred long 
before the flood, but I don't know.  This might seem inconsistent with the
Scriptures.  But, I'm not personally certain that Noah and his crew were the 
only survivors of the flood.

> >   I would understand if geneticists accepted that all Indians were
> >   Oriental and not Semetic, but I would be highly skeptical if they 
> >   accepted this as truth.

>Your comments on quantum physics are well taken, but I'm not sure you have 
>made a clear distiction between "accepting" something and "accepting" the 
>same something "as truth". Why would you accept something you didn't 
>believe was true? 

The answer is that science accepts theories, but does not necessarily adopt
them as truth.  For example, it is not true that you can take the
square root of negative one.  But, by temporarily accepting that there is 
such a root you can solve problems not easily solved by other means.  It is 
used in proofs for other mathematical concepts, even though it is agreed that 
it does not exist.  Similarly, photon and wave theories of light conflict
in physics, but both are accepted.  It can be shown experimentally that light
exhibits both wave and particle properties.  But, it is not accepted as truth
that light is either wave or particle.

What I am pointing out is that scientists tend accept things but do not 
necessarily state that they are truths.  Laymen, on the other hand, commonly 
(and often mistakenly) confuse what scientists accept as theory as being 
truth, not understanding the theoretical nature of science.  If anything, 
scientists often make their greatest discoveries by assuming that the theories 
accepted by the scientific community are  *not* truth!

>I hope this is not the same attitude you take towards 
>the Book of Mormon, because it doesn't make much sense. 

I accept the Book of Mormon as truth, not as theory.  I attribute any conflict
with truth to be my misunderstanding or interpretation of the Book.

>Maybe I didn't 
>understand your explanation. Also, I think it is erroneous to take 
>an example from theoretical physics and try to make a case for the 
>inaccuracy of genetics. They just aren't the same

Genetics and physics are both sciences.  They both deal in theories.  I have
illustrated with examples from physics about how theories are accepted by
scientists even though they may not be accepted as truth.  Pick a science, 
any science.  There will likely be examples of theories known not to be true, 
but which are accepted by the community until something better comes along.
The only reason for not picking examples from genetics is that I do not know 
genetics that well.  Besides, scientists are accustomed to theories being
changed and modified, sometimes radically, over time.  

Aside from that, something like a unified field theory that is formally 
agreed upon has the potential to radically effect *all* sciences, including 
genetics.  So, my pick of physics may not have been so unrelated after all.
The sciences tend to interact with developments in one science sometimes 
having profound influence on another.

> > My guess is that this conclusion is based on large samples and does not
> > eliminate the possible effects of small samples from the Semetic
> > population from 2600 years ago and earlier. 
>
>If, the basis for the claim of the Indian's descent from Israelites is a
>small population of Semites mingled into a much larger population of
>non-Israelites 2600 years ago, then their status as descendents of Jews 
>doesn't exist, because they would have long ago lost their racial 
>identity to the larger race of Indians they mingled with. Besides, the 
>Book of Mormon says their skin was darkened by God, and they thus became 
>the American Indians. No mention of mingling with another group is 
>mentioned.

As Allen pointed out, mingling with other groups is neither confirmed nor
denied in the B of M.  Keep in mind, however, that the genetic traits being 
discussed are from mother to daughter.  The genealogy of the mother was not 
always the basis of whether one was a Jew or not in the Scriptures.  Rather it 
tended to be traced through the father.  I don't know what process was 
involved in the darkening of skin or how God did it.


Steve

Hi Steve,

> An exact science might be something like basic chemistry.  The theories 
> presented here have to do with matter and can be verified in the lab.  
> Or, another might be biology.  Again, the theories can be tested through 
> experiments that can be repeated and evidence observed.  

 Genetics is biology, Steve.

> What keeps it [archaeology] from being exact is that you can't go back in
> time to actually see what happened... you can't actually go back in 
> time and repeat history.

> The same goes for genetic tracing.  True, you can do some experiments and
> show genetic tracing principles in action.  But, the implications that
> stretch over many years cannot be directly verified.  Again, the
> 'experiment' has been done once and cannot be repeated. 

> I think it is akin to doing research and using secondary versus primary
> sources.  Without access to primary sources, one is left to the
> interpretations of those who have access to those sources. 

> But, as to genetic tracing, there is no way scientists will be able to verify
> how genetics trace back several thousand years because they were not there.

Genetic studies can be, and are, made on very old human remains, with 
some very interesting and enlightening results, so your analogy to 
archaeology is not valid.

> The relevence requires understanding of the implications of small samples
> of a population and how that limits the interpretation of results.  One
> of the questions I have posed has to do with the possibility of a genetic
> bridge between the Orient and the Israelites having occurred relatively
> shortly before Lehi came over.  I know of no way to either prove or 
> disprove that Lehi's wife carried Oriental markers now detected.  That
> she could have traced her lineage to common lineage with Orientals is a
> possibility since there were apparent interactions with people from the
> east according to the Scriptures. Israelites were sometimes known to take
> wives from other nations, so this is a real possibility. 

I don't know what you mean by a "genetic bridge", but if you are 
speculating that the Israelites had a strong enough injection of Oriental 
blood at that time, then a large part of the Israelis of today would also 
carry Oriental genetic material, which I am certain is not the case. What 
it seems like you are really saying is that you are hoping for enough
confusion in genetic material between ancient Orientals and ancient
Israelis to invalidate present research, or put it in such doubt that
it's findings carry no weight. I'd also like you to be more specific in
your references to "apparent interactions with people from the east
according to Scriptures", because I can think of none at the moment.

> If the science claims that these traits are passed down from mother to
> daughter, 

> .......To come to such a conclusion may well
> disprove the theory unless it can account for women who have migrated
> between nations and whose traits were passed to their daughters.  Then
> again, I've not read the complete theory. 

> There's the biggest rub.  The geneaologies tend to trace through male
> lines. The genetics trace through female lines.  It's like apples and
> oranges because...

> Keep in mind, however, that the genetic traits being discussed are from
> mother to daughter.  The genealogy of the mother was not always the basis
> of whether one was a Jew or not in the Scriptures.  Rather it tended to
> be traced through the father.  I don't know what process was involved in
> the darkening of skin or how God did it. 

Steve, genetics, and specifically genetic tracing, is *not* limited only
to traits passed from mother to daughter. What makes the articles
referred to by Ed Cox (see .26) interesting is the reference to only
*one* specific genetic marker which happens to be passed only from
mother to daughter (rare), which has been of such usefulness in determin-
ing racial heredity. It is not, by any means, the *only* genetic marker 
that can distinguish one race from another. 

�    My educational background is in the physical sciences and, in the
�    course of my studies and since, one of the things that has constantly
�    amused me is propensity of some people, including many scientists, to
�    take a teaspoon full of empirical evidence, and stir it together with a
�    truck load of speculation, and cook it into a product they promote as
�    proven "fact". (see .25, Rich Kotter)

Steve, I think that you and Rich are doing the much same thing with your
approach to genetics. You are taking a handful of carefully chosen 
truisms, stirring them together with a truckload of uninformed speculation,
and cooking it over the fire of personal zeal until you can reduce the
findings of good, scientific, research into a mish-mash of highly
questionable postulating, liable to be blown away by the next
breakthrough in research. 

No, genetics cannot answer any question you can conceive of, and yes, 
maybe God Himself turned Lamanite Jews into American Indians with 
Oriental genetic makeup, but over and over I've seen the same pattern 
in these discussions about hard evidence that runs contrary to Mormon 
beliefs, pick and pull and speculate until either the mountain of 
evidence against Mormon claims is reduced to insignifigance, or a
particle of evidence favoring Mormon beliefs becomes a basis for the
turning to the Book of Mormon with a renewed conviction of its "truth". 

I'll be the first to admit how awkward it is to deal with anyone whose 
ultimate test for truth in anything is an inner feeling. This has been, 
like others before, a very interesting and illuminating discussion.

Ed

Hi, Ed.

> Genetics is biology, Steve.

Well, they're not the same or they'd have the same definition.  However,
genetics is a form of biology in that biology is the study of living things 
and life processes, and genetics is the study of hereditary transmission and 
variation.  Pick another science that's a subset of biology if you don't like 
biology.  Microbiology, for example.  As I understand it, its theories can be 
tested and verified in the lab with repeatable experiments.

>Genetic studies can be, and are, made on very old human remains, with 
>some very interesting and enlightening results, so your analogy to 
>archaeology is not valid.

That's a non sequitur.  A similar statement can be made of arcaeological 
studies being made on very old remains of material evidence of human life and 
cultures.  The hard evidence does not necessarily lead to hard conclusions
(truths).  These conclusions can change with the addition of more hard 
evidence.

>I don't know what you mean by a "genetic bridge", but if you are 
>speculating that the Israelites had a strong enough injection of Oriental 
>blood at that time, 

If you don't like 'genetic bridge', pick another term.  'Injection' is fine
with me.  I am *not* speculating that Israelites had a 'strong' injection of 
Oriental blood.  That might show up in small samples pretty easily.  I am 
speculating that it was a *weak* injection.  Such may or may not show up in 
small samples of a large population, but may well be carried via migration of 
small populations, such as on a ship to the Americas.

>carry Oriental genetic material, which I am certain is not the case. What 
>it seems like you are really saying is that you are hoping for enough
>confusion in genetic material between ancient Orientals and ancient
>Israelis to invalidate present research, or put it in such doubt that
>it's findings carry no weight. I'd also like you to be more specific in
>your references to "apparent interactions with people from the east
>according to Scriptures", because I can think of none at the moment.

I'm not 'hoping' for confusion about present research.  It's already waiting 
for any layman that has little understanding of scientific processes and limits 
of assumptions (as they've tend to make with small samples, exotic number 
systems and outright guesses) and who is ready to adopt what scientists accept 
at any point in time as being truth.  

As to Scriptural references to interactions with people from the east, here 
are a few:

	Genesis 29:1
	Numbers 23:7 
	Judges 6:3, 7:12, 8:10 (references to the children of the east)
	1 Kings 4:30 (referring to the children of the east country)
	Psalms 103:12 (indicating knowledge of the great distance from east
		       to west)
	
As I mentioned before, I don't know how far east these encounters indicate.
These don't necessarily include the interactions the Israelites had with other
nations, who in turn could have had interactions with Oriental nations.
	
>Steve, genetics, and specifically genetic tracing, is *not* limited only
>to traits passed from mother to daughter. What makes the articles
>referred to by Ed Cox (see .26) interesting is the reference to only
>*one* specific genetic marker which happens to be passed only from
>mother to daughter (rare), which has been of such usefulness in determin-
>ing racial heredity. It is not, by any means, the *only* genetic marker 
>that can distinguish one race from another. 

I've not read the articles, but note .26 refers to the mother-to-daughter
transference of DNA information as being the thrust of the articles.  It is 
this form that is not confounded by sexual encounters and such, according to 
the note.  He went on to point out that the male side had little to do with 
this analysis method.

>Steve, I think that you and Rich are doing the much same thing with your
>approach to genetics. You are taking a handful of carefully chosen 
>truisms, stirring them together with a truckload of uninformed speculation,
>and cooking it over the fire of personal zeal until you can reduce the
>findings of good, scientific, research into a mish-mash of highly
>questionable postulating, liable to be blown away by the next
>breakthrough in research. 

I'm not knocking genetics or any science.  If I were a geneticist, I would
probably accept the model and see how the findings could help me in my work.
What I would not do is accept such broad findings as truth.  In fact, I might
well start my next research project on the basis that they are *not* true
and see if I can come up with a better model.

What I am knocking is the propensity of laymen to accept scientific theory as
fact.  Even scientists seldom do that without a lot of if's, and's or but's.
This propensity on the part of laymen has probably even been the source of a 
lot of humor for scientists.  Remember hearing any physics professors laugh
about people who believe in centrifugal force?  Correct me if I'm wrong, but
this may have at one time been accepted by scientists.  Or, how about ether
defined as an all-pervading, infinitely elastic, massless medium postulated as
the medium of propogation of electromagnetic waves?  It *was* accepted in
the scientific community, but no more.  Yet, the term is still used among
laymen, sometimes to the humor of scientists.  (I *suppose* the archaic 
meaning worked its way into the name Ethernet.)

>No, genetics cannot answer any question you can conceive of, and yes, 
>maybe God Himself turned Lamanite Jews into American Indians with 
>Oriental genetic makeup, but over and over I've seen the same pattern 
>in these discussions about hard evidence that runs contrary to Mormon 
>beliefs, pick and pull and speculate until either the mountain of 
>evidence against Mormon claims is reduced to insignifigance, or a
>particle of evidence favoring Mormon beliefs becomes a basis for the
>turning to the Book of Mormon with a renewed conviction of its "truth". 

Incorrect interpretation of hard evidence can lead to erroneous results.  And, 
if new evidence shows up, the hard evidence can be unchanged, but 
interpretation of the evidence dramatically altered.  I don't know that 
Lamanite Jews had a sudden change of genetic makeup to make them appear 
Oriental.  My feeling is that any similarity may have resulted from peoples 
who already populated the New World or may have been brought over from the
Old World with Lehi and gang.  As to the mountains of evidence against the 
Church, I don't feel that Mormons need to do much to reduce them.  These 
mountains have a history of crumbling on their own accord over time.

How about this for a thought experiment.  Suppose a Jewish male and female 
migrated to the Orient 2000 years ago and each married and had lots of kids.
Would this show up in genetic tracing today?  What about an Oriental male
and female migrating to Israel 2000 years ago?


Steve

    Re: Note 192.33 by CASV05::PRESTON

    Hi Ed,
    
>Steve, I think that you and Rich are doing the much same thing with your
>approach to genetics. You are taking a handful of carefully chosen 
>truisms, stirring them together with a truckload of uninformed speculation,
>and cooking it over the fire of personal zeal until you can reduce the
>findings of good, scientific, research into a mish-mash of highly
>questionable postulating, liable to be blown away by the next
>breakthrough in research. 

    I'll be the first to admit that everything I have said about genetics
    in this topic is speculation. I'm no geneticist. I'll also be the first
    to admit that my zeal gets me going on some things. But I will not
    plead guilty to trying to reduce the findings of scientific research to
    a "mish-mash" of anything. 
    
    I guess what I am trying to say is that there may be other aspects of
    the discussion on genetics that are worthy of further investigation.
    I'm saying that what science knows is still less that what it doesn't
    know. I'm saying that God knows more that geneticists, and *He* should
    be our *ultimate* test of truth. 

>over and over I've seen the same pattern 
>in these discussions about hard evidence that runs contrary to Mormon 
>beliefs, pick and pull and speculate until either the mountain of 
>evidence against Mormon claims is reduced to insignifigance, or a
>particle of evidence favoring Mormon beliefs becomes a basis for the
>turning to the Book of Mormon with a renewed conviction of its "truth". 
    
    Admittedly, some of this happens on both sides of the fence. People
    defend their "particles" of truth and extrapolate them to unfounded
    conclusions. I suppose it is human nature, and will be the case, so
    long as we do not have complete understanding of the facts. 
    
>I'll be the first to admit how awkward it is to deal with anyone whose 
>ultimate test for truth in anything is an inner feeling. This has been, 
>like others before, a very interesting and illuminating discussion.

    I presume that what are referring to by the "inner feeling" is the
    claim of Mormons to having received a witness from God through the
    power of the Holy Spirit that the Book of Mormon (or other principles
    in question) is true. Yes, this could be awkward if you are of the firm
    belief that God will not or cannot reveal such a thing to the ordinary,
    garden variety, person on the street who sincerely asks Him. But
    Mormons believe that He can and He will and He has. 
    
    There are many "particles" of empirical evidence that point to the
    truth of the Book of Mormon and there are many that point away from it.
    For me, these "particles" are not the ultimate test of the truth of the
    Book of Mormon, nor of anything else. The ultimate test of truth, the
    ultimate source of truth, is God Himself. 
    
    If I know a thing is true because God revealed it to me, but then some
    person brings to my attention some information seems to contradict what
    God has revealed, then I will not throw out what God has revealed to
    me. I will say, instead, "that is interesting and I would like to know
    how it fits in what what God has revealed to me". 
    
    By the way, I think this is that same approach that many Christians
    have taken over the centuries, when scientific claims seem to
    contradict what is written in the Holy Bible. They don't just throw out
    the Bible, but rather they seek to understand how it all fits together.
    So Mormons are not unique in this approach. 
    
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich

re .15:

 >   HM!  What you say is very interesting, Ed, about genetics stating that
 >   the American Indians are all Oriental.  

 >                     ...Rather the claim is as Steve Sherman has said
 >   that the Book of Mormon tells the story of ancient semitic tribes,
 >   often very small in number, living in this hemisphere.  These tribes
 >   died or were killed off and it is unclear if these tribes intermarried
 >   with other local natives. If they were true to ancient Israelite
 >   customs, intermarriage with "Gentiles" might have been taboo, thus
 >   creating a very in-bred society whose genetic code and markers could
 >   have died out with them.

What I said was that genetic studies of the American Indians indicate 
that they are descended from Orientals, and are therefore not Semitic, as 
Mormons have been claiming (although perhaps no longer, according to 
Alan Leigh). It is plain that the basis for the Mormon claim is the 
account in the Book of Mormon that the Lamanites, who were Semitic, had 
their skin darkened by God, and were therefore the forerunners of the 
American Indian. If the ancient semitic tribes were small in number, 
died, were killed off, or intermarried with local natives, then they were 
not the forerunners of the American Indian.

 >   I would like to hear from someone knowledgeable/trained in genetics who
 >   could add some more light.  Is there such a person?  

Go back and read 237.1. Although not a professional, I believe I can 
claim to be knowledgeable in genetics.
    
 >    I see a conflict between genetics and anthropology because Thor Heyerdahl
 >    established the cultural links between Egypt and South America with the
 >    voyage of RA 2. Other anthropologists and archeologists have also
 >    established such linkages, such as C. Vance right here at Brandeis U.,
 >    who discovered Phoenician settlements in Brazil.
    
I don't see the conflict yet. First of all, we are talking about the 
ancestry of the American Indian, not the South American Indian, and 
second, cultural links do not necessarily make for genetic links. It does 
not follow that Egyptians who may have visited South America married any 
of the native South Americans, any more than Vikings married Indians in 
New Hampshire when they visited here long ago.

I would be curious to hear what C. Vance would have to say about the idea 
of the American Indian being descended from ancient semite tribes.

 >   So, does any geneticist out there have more information which might
 >   help to settle the question in my mind about the conflict in what Ed
 >   says the geneticists say and what I have read from the antropologists?

Well, what would you like to know? I have my geneticist hat right here 
(such as it is...) and I might even be willing to call the genetics prof
at Harvard to get some real expert commentary, but the question would 
have to be *real* good! (at least over my head)

BTW: I have spoken with him a few times on this topic, and there doesn't 
seem to be a lot of room for interpretation, but maybe I didn't ask the 
right question...

Ed

Hi Ed,

>                      First of all, we are talking about the 
>ancestry of the American Indian, not the South American Indian,

It appears we have some confusion about terminology.  When Mormons use the
phrase "American indian" in connection with the BoM and Lamanites, we are
using it in a generic way to refer to people anywhere in North, Central, or
South America, and the comments from Mormons in this note should be
considered in that context.  

       [I reversed the order of the two quotes from Ed's reply so I
        could clarify the meaning of "American indian"]

> It is plain that the basis for the Mormon claim is the 
>account in the Book of Mormon that the Lamanites, who were Semitic, had 
>their skin darkened by God, and were therefore the forerunners of the 
>American Indian. If the ancient semitic tribes were small in number, 
>died, were killed off, or intermarried with local natives, then they were 
>not the forerunners of the American Indian.

As I explained in .12, the basis for any claim by Mormons that the Lamanites
were the forerunners of the American indian is not the Book of Mormon but is
unclear thinking of us Mormons.  The BoM doesn't say anything about the
American indian of today because it was finished in 421 AD.  The BoM does
say that the Lamanites had a black skin (no implication that they were Negroid),
that they destroyed the Nephite nation who had the coloring of the Jews, and
that there would be descendants of the Lamanites living in the future.  We
Mormons have assumed that the "black" skin was the "brown" of the indian.  We
have also assumed that the Lamanites spread all over the North & South American
continents and that the North & South American Indians were descendants of
them.  However, the BoM does not give any justification for those assumptions.
I think that we Mormons tend to look at the world with blinders on as if our
world were the only world.  Using the BoM as a reference, about all we can say
is that somewhere in the North & South American continents there are people
living who are descendants of the Lamanites.

Allen

As I explained in .12 and in the previous reply, the Book of Mormon states
that a group of Semitic people landed somewhere in North, Central, or
South America and lived here for about 1000 years.  It also says that
another group of people came from Asia and lived here for about 1000 years.
The Book of Mormon descriptions of those people are vague, and we are not
able to identify in terms of todays geography where the BoM peoples lived
and who the Lamanites would be today.  Most Mormons (myself included) have
made assumptions about who and how numerous the Lamanites are today, but
those assumptions are made independently of the Book of Mormon.

To me, the key issue in this discussion of genetic testing is, does that
testing strengthen or weaken the Book of Mormon.  It is not an issue with
me whether that testing strengthens or weakens the assumptions that Mormons
have historically made about the Lamanites, because we are human and our
assumptions could easily be wrong.

So far, no one has outlined the procedures followed in the genetic testing
so we could understand it in terms of what the BoM actually says.  There
are several questions about that testing that need to be answered if anyone
has access to reports that describe it.

1.  Specifically which Indians were tested?

2.  If *all* indian tribes in the North and South American continents were
    not tested (likely the case) do the researchers (or other scientists)
    claim that the testing can be extrapolated to *all* tribes?

If the answer to #2 is "yes", then we need to have summaries of the
reasons posted for our study.  If the answer to #2 is "no", then I feel that
the genetic testing is not very significant to our religious acceptance of the
Book of Mormon since we do not know which native peoples in North and South
America are descendants of the Lamanites and which ones aren't, i.e. we have
no way of knowing if the genetic testing tested the Lamanites or not.

I personally feel that this topic is quite important, because truth is truth
whether it comes by revelation from God to a prophet or from scientific 
research.  I hope that persons having details of the procedures followed in
the genetic testing will post them so we can get answers to the two questions
above.

Allen

    Like Allen, I would like to know how geneticists justify broad
    conclusions about large and varied populations extending over centuries
    from small samples taken from a few instantaneous points in time.
    As scientists, I would expect that geneticists would be aware of
    the weaknesses imposed by these constraints.  And, as before, I am 
    skeptical when scientific models are mistaken by laymen (those who are 
    not authorities or specialists) to be truths.  How often are flaws
    found in scientific models?  How long do scientific models typically
    endure without fundamental modification?  Flaws and failures over
    time are not traits of truth.
    
    Steve

re .21,.22:

> As I explained in .12, the basis for any claim by Mormons that the
> Lamanites were the forerunners of the American indian is not the Book of
> Mormon but is unclear thinking of us Mormons.  
:
> We Mormons have assumed that the "black" skin was the "brown" of the
> indian.  We have also assumed that the Lamanites spread all over the
> North & South American continents and that the North & South American
> Indians were descendants of them.  However, the BoM does not give any
> justification for those assumptions... Using the BoM as a reference,
> about all we can say is that somewhere in the North & South American
> continents there are people living who are descendants of the Lamanites. 

I appreciate your forthrightness, Allen.

> To me, the key issue in this discussion of genetic testing is, does that
> testing strengthen or weaken the Book of Mormon.  

If the Mormons maintain that there are "Lamanites" to be found somewhere 
in North, Central, or South America, then I'm sure they no one has located 
them yet, because it would have been mentioned very early in this topic.
And I think we can say with a high degree of certainty that the American
Indian of today is not a descendent of the Lamanite of the past. 

> 2.  If *all* indian tribes in the North and South American continents were
>     not tested (likely the case) do the researchers (or other scientists)
>     claim that the testing can be extrapolated to *all* tribes?

> i.e. we have no way of knowing if the genetic testing tested the 
> Lamanites or not.

I'm not sure about the signifigance of "tribes" as a meaningful division, 
since, as I understand it, the word "tribe" used in reference to Indians, 
could mean a group of Sioux living here vs another group of Sioux 
living there, and it could also mean a larger distinction, such as the 
Payutes vs the Cherokee. For the purposes of our discussion, though, I
suppose we can assume that different tribes have different forebears, 
back through at least several generations. 

I am even more sure that if genetics research sets out to answer the
question "What is the origin of the American Indian?", they would have
enough scientific sense to do a sufficiently thorough study to justify
any extrapolations they may have made. Of course anyone is free to insist
on more research to find a certain group they feel may be out there.

> So far, no one has outlined the procedures followed in the genetic testing
> so we could understand it in terms of what the BoM actually says.  There
> are several questions about that testing that need to be answered if anyone
> has access to reports that describe it.

Allen, you might be surprised by some of the procedures that geneticists 
have come up with..! And I don't mean high-tech electrophoresis/radiograms, 
(genetic fingerprinting) either! If I can get hold of information on some 
of them, and it's not too technical, ("the Restriction Fragment Length
Polymorphisms unique to group A are indicative of blah, blah, blah...")
maybe I can pass it on to anyone who's interested. 

> I personally feel that this topic is quite important, because truth is truth
> whether it comes by revelation from God to a prophet or from scientific 
> research.  

Good point, but when revelation and research conflict, that can present a 
dilemma... (I know, I know, we've been over this before...)

Ed

Ed Cox kindly sent me the two articles he referenced about the genetic
testing, and they arrived this morning.  Two research groups were mentioned,
Wilson of Berkeley and Wallace of Emory.  I've extrated the parts that
pertained to my questions about how extensive the testing of the Indians
was.

    "The research has involved screening mitochondrial DNA from nearly
    1000 people from all over the world--Kalahari bushmen from southern
    Africa, African Bantu tribes, Europeans, Chinese, Papago and Pima
    and other American Indian tribes, Arabs and Israeli Jews and Australian
    aborigines, among others.  Using enzymes that chop up the DNA at
    specific sites, scientists can spot distinctive mutations that have
    accumulated in different ethnic groups.  Some scientists believe these
    mutations occur at a steady rate of 4 to 4 percent every million
    years, whatever the species.  If this is true, mutations in 
    mitochondrial DNA constitute a 'molecular clock,' analogous to the
    decay in radioactive isotopes such as carbon-14 that has been so valuable
    for dating fossil remains.  By comparing the frequency and distribution
    of these distinctive mutation patterns, the theory goes, one can track
    human populations back trough time and space, and also discern the times
    when populations diverged." ('Globe article)


    "In addition to tracking the origins of all mankind, proponents are using
    the method to investigate the origins of particular peoples.  For
    instance, Wallace's group has reported that the mitochondria of American
    Indians is distinctively Asian, reinforcing the theory that the Americas
    were originally populated by Asians.  'We hope to be able to address
    questions like, How many people came over to this continent?  How long
    ago was it?  Were there several waves of migration?' Wallace said."
    ('Globe article)

    "But the Emory researchers think Eve [a female who is believed to be the
    common source of all the mitochondrial DNA in humans] might have lived in
    Asia [the Berkeley group thinks she lived in Africa].  they base their
    conclusion also on mitochondrial DNA, which they gathered from the blood
    of about 700 people on four continents."  (Newsweek article, p. 50)

    "Wallace faults the Berkeley researchers for getting most of their African
    DNA samples from American blacks, who ancestors could have mixed with
    Europeans and Americans.  the Berkeley researchers insist that their study
    is better because they chopped the DNA into smaller pieces, enabling them 
    to analyze differences more carefully.  Both groups acknowledge that
    there's room for improvement, and they're planning to gather more samples
    and look more closely at the DNA's structure."  (Newsweek article, p. 51)

RE .24 (Ed Preston)

>And I think we can say with a high degree of certainty that the American
>Indian of today is not a descendent of the Lamanite of the past. 

>I am even more sure that if genetics research sets out to answer the
>question "What is the origin of the American Indian?", they would have
>enough scientific sense to do a sufficiently thorough study to justify
>any extrapolations they may have made. Of course anyone is free to insist
>on more research to find a certain group they feel may be out there.

I got the feel from reading the 'Globe & Newsweek articles that the
genetic research on the origins of our races is preliminary and that more
work is planned.  I would suggest, Ed, that it may be premature to draw
hard & fast conclusions about all American Indians from the apparently
small samples used.  I will be interested in tracking additional research
on this.

>Good point, but when revelation and research conflict, that can present a 
>dilemma... (I know, I know, we've been over this before...)

Not just a dilemma for us Mormons, but one for Christians in general: the
Biblical concepts of the Fall of Adam and the Atonement of Christ vs the
scientific model of a world that has always been mortal.

Allen

Re .25 (the 'Globe article)

>    Wallace's group has reported that the mitochondria of American
>    Indians is distinctively Asian, reinforcing the theory that the Americas
>    were originally populated by Asians.

As as been mentioned several times, the Book of Mormon does not claim that
the Jaredites/Nephites were the original population.  I would hope that all
Mormons accept the scientific fact that there were people here long before
the Jaredites.

One question on the research that needs answering:  The 'Globe reporter said
the data showed the Indians were *distinctively* Asian.  Does the data show
the Indians were *uniquely* Asian?  That is, that the Indians have had no
non-Asian groups mingle with them?

Allen

    re: .25
    
    Thanks for posting the sections from the articles.  It will be
    interesting to us all to discover what further research and testing
    may reveal.  

    
    Steve

Re .26

> I got the feel from reading the 'Globe & Newsweek articles that the
> genetic research on the origins of our races is preliminary and that more
> work is planned.  I would suggest, Ed, that it may be premature to draw
> hard & fast conclusions about all American Indians from the apparently
> small samples used.  I will be interested in tracking additional research
> on this.

The recurrent implication has been that I am drawing 'hard and fast'
conclusions, taking 'scientific theory as truth,' or some other such
overly-simplistic approach to this topic. Perhaps, since the available
and mounting evidence (genetic and otherwise) is so apparently one-sided,
it is not hard to conclude that there has yet to be found any objective
basis for belief in the existence of a group of people called 'Lamanites'. 

� Good point, but when revelation and research conflict, that can present a 
� dilemma... (I know, I know, we've been over this before...)

> Not just a dilemma for us Mormons, but one for Christians in general: the
> Biblical concepts of the Fall of Adam and the Atonement of Christ vs the
> scientific model of a world that has always been mortal.

I don't understand what you mean by this.

Re .27          

> One question on the research that needs answering:  The 'Globe reporter said
> the data showed the Indians were *distinctively* Asian.  Does the data show
> the Indians were *uniquely* Asian?  That is, that the Indians have had no
> non-Asian groups mingle with them?

Considering that the scope of the research covered several other racial
groups, (including Semites) the term "distinctively Asian" would seem to
effectively and unequivocably set them apart from non-Asian groups. Also,
had the American Indian's genetic material been intermingled with other
races, the researchers' conclusion "distinctively Asian" would have
probably been considerably less emphatic. In other words, I think that
in this context, "distinctively" and "uniquely" can be considered
synonymous. It is probably akin to saying that, among trees, a Douglas
Fir is distictively coniferous and a Redwood distinctively deciduous. 

Ed

Well, Ed, it seems to me that if researchers test a subset of the American
Indians nations and then draw conclusions about the origin of all Indian
Nations, they are making an assumption that all the Nations had a common
origin.

>Considering that the scope of the research covered several other racial
>groups, (including Semites) the term "distinctively Asian" would seem to
>effectively and unequivocably set them apart from non-Asian groups. Also,
>had the American Indian's genetic material been intermingled with other
>races, the researchers' conclusion "distinctively Asian" would have
>probably been considerably less emphatic. In other words, I think that
>in this context, "distinctively" and "uniquely" can be considered
>synonymous. It is probably akin to saying that, among trees, a Douglas
>Fir is distictively coniferous and a Redwood distinctively deciduous. 

The phrase "distinctively Asian" came from the 'Globe reporter and was not
a quote of Wallace.  My point is that there is an important difference
between "distinctively Asian" and "uniquely Asian", and the 'Globe article
did not have enough information for us to know which term is justified by
Wallace's research.  As quoted in the article, Wallace did say, "We hope to
be able to address questions like, How many people came over to this 
continent?  How long ago was it?  Were there several waves of migration?"
It seems that Wallace feels that more research is needed to accurately 
understand the origin of the Indians.  It was because of his statement, I
said in my previous reply that I had gotten the feeling that the testing at
the present time was preliminary and that more testing was planned.


>> Not just a dilemma for us Mormons, but one for Christians in general: the
>> Biblical concepts of the Fall of Adam and the Atonement of Christ vs the
>> scientific model of a world that has always been mortal.
>
>I don't understand what you mean by this.

We Mormons do have a dilemma in that we claim the Book of Mormon is a 
religious history of certain people who lived somewhere in the North/South
American continents but there isn't any *direct* evidence about them, although
there is much *parallel* or *indirect* evidence.  Christians have a similar
dilemma in that we believe and the Bible teaches that the world was created
in a form without death, and that through the act of Adam, the world was
changed to the present mortal world of death.  There is no *direct* scientific
evidence of this change and not even any *parallel* evidence.  Christians have
to accept the Fall of Adam on faith.  In fact, current scientific thinking is
that the world has always been one of death; thus, science is directly opposed
to one of the most basic and important theological concepts in Christianity.
In addition, the genetic testing we are discussing dates "Eve" [the woman
being the common source of the DNA) back about 200,000 years ago, much further
back than the Biblical genealogies would allow.  (If anyone would like to
discuss the Fall further, please do so in a new note so we won't fragment this
note).

The 'Globe reporter, in using the phrase "distinctively Asian" said
the following.

    Wallace's group has reported that the mitochondria of American
    Indians is distinctively Asian, reinforcing the theory that the Americas
    were originally populated by Asians.

It doesn't sound to me that the reporter was drawing hard & fast conclusions
about the origin of the Indians.  The reporter seemed to feel that the
genetic testing *reinforced the theory* that the Americas were populated by
Asians rather than clinched the fact of such a population.

As as been mentioned several times, the question concerning genetic testing
and the Book of Mormon is not who the original people were but whether 
genetic testing supports or is against our view that Semetic people came
here by ship much later than the original settlers.  Wallace plans to study
how many groups came here & when, so his results will be important for us to
track.

Allen

> It seems that Wallace feels that more research is needed to accurately 
> understand the origin of the Indians.  It was because of his statement, I
> said in my previous reply that I had gotten the feeling that the testing at
> the present time was preliminary and that more testing was planned.

> It doesn't sound to me that the reporter was drawing hard & fast
> conclusions about the origin of the Indians.  The reporter seemed to feel
> that the genetic testing *reinforced the theory* that the Americas were
> populated by Asians rather than clinched the fact of such a population. 

There's that "hard and fast" thing again! Nobody's drawing "hard and 
fast" conclusions in this topic, but I will continue to reaffirm that 
genetic research relating to the origin of the American Indian has so far 
conflicted with any *theory* that they may be descended from any group 
other than Asians. You certainly may speculate and hold out hope that the 
prove otherwise, but, personally, I think you're in for a very long 
wait...

> Christians have a similar dilemma in that we believe and the Bible
> teaches that the world was created in a form without death, and that
> through the act of Adam, the world was changed to the present mortal
> world of death.  There is no *direct* scientific evidence of this change
> and not even any *parallel* evidence.  Christians have to accept the Fall
> of Adam on faith.  In fact, current scientific thinking is that the world
> has always been one of death; thus, science is directly opposed to one of
> the most basic and important theological concepts in Christianity. 

Ok, without igniting an entirely new topic on the nature of creation 
prior to the Fall, let me say that what you have sais is correct as far 
as it goes, but it is not germane to the topic at hand. The "dilemma" you 
pose is far less signifigant than the present topic, because you are 
refering to something of a different nature. Sure, there is no direct
evidence or parallel evidence to support the belief, but you've only 
been able to cite "current scientific thinking" as the counter evidence, 
which is not evidence at all, just a mindset, an assumption. Then you
take this assumption and use it to conclude "thus, science is directly
opposed to one of the most basic and important theological concepts in
Christianity" when in fact it is not. "Science" cannot oppose something 
that it can only assume. I will say that scientific thinking does not 
allow for such a possibility, but, to my knowledge, no evidence can be 
mustered to directly oppose it, either. This is very different from clear, 
scientific, evidence contradicting claims based otherwise on faith, such 
as the existence of a group of Semites in the western hemisphere in 
ancient times.

> As as been mentioned several times, the question concerning genetic testing
> and the Book of Mormon is not who the original people were but whether 
> genetic testing supports or is against our view that Semetic people came
> here by ship much later than the original settlers.  

I think that question has been answered for the present time, and the 
answer is "no".

Ed

    Ed,
    
    Does this mean that if genetic research finds evidence that could
    be used to support a theory involving genetic tracing of the American
    Indians to the region of the Israelites around the time of Lehi
    you would change your opinion?
    
    Steve

    Re .33:
    
    I wouldn't hold your breath on this one, Steve!
    
    Mark

 >   Does this mean that if genetic research finds evidence that could
 >   be used to support a theory involving genetic tracing of the American
 >   Indians to the region of the Israelites around the time of Lehi
 >   you would change your opinion?
    
Since my opinion on this subject is that genetic research does not  
support Book of Mormon claims, then, if the situation you posed actually 
came about, then the answer to your question is, "probably." It would 
depend on what the evidence was and how it was used to support the theory.
But, having just spend the last 14 weeks in fairly in-depth study of the
science of genetics, under a highly-qualified instructor, I must say that
I have a developed a great deal of respect for the findings of genetic
analysis - it's that accurate and unambiguous. In case no one noticed, I
am basically a skeptic who requires evidence where evidence is called
for, and am not readily convinced.

If, in your monitoring of genetic research findings, you discover a tribe 
of Indians that are distinctively Semitic in their genetic makup, please 
do not hesitate to share this information with us. Like I said to Allen, 
though, I think such evidence is not forthcoming, especially in light of 
the fact that their is no compelling evidence of any other kind to 
support such anticipation.

Perhaps I should ask you a similar question: If further genetic research 
continues to demonstrate that no Indians can be found who have Semitic
roots, will you begin to change your opinion of the Book of Mormon? 

Ed

    	Re: 237.35 (Ed)
    
    
    	If someone came out with what appeared to be proof that the Bible
        was just a great novel would you change your opinion regarding 
        it as the word of God? I don't believe you would because your
    	"TESTIMONY" of that wonderful book doesn't come from material 
    	evidence. It comes from God through the Holy Spirit. No matter how
    	compelling the evidence was your "spiritual knowledge" would not,
    	and I submit, could not change because you love our Savior to much
    	to deny what He has revealed to you.
    
    	After all of the association you have had with the "Mormons" I 
    	just can't believe you haven't caught on yet. I am absolutely and
    	totally amazed. Don't you realize that our TESTIMONY of the Book
    	of Mormon comes to us in the same way your TESTIMONY of the Bible
    	comes to you? This testimony is borne to our souls by the Holy 
    	Spirit and we can't deny it because our love for our Savior is 
    	such that we not only can't but we don't want to! As for me, you
    	could feed me supposed proofs about the falsehood of the B of M
    	all day long and it wouldn't sway my testimony one iota regarding
    	the Book of Mormon because that testimony comes from GOD and not
    	men. I love my Heavenly Father & my Savior too much. All I am I 
    	owe to them and I never want to be just a fair-weather friend.
    
    	I know that you believe we are being led astray and are in danger
    	of going to hell. I admire your missionary zeal because that zeal
    	shows you really care for us. Thank you for caring! Do you see 
    	where we are coming from? I hope so. These bits of information 
    	make for interesting discussion but that, I believe, is all. 
    
     	God bless you Ed and keep up the good work. 
    
    	Dave. (Job 19:23-27)
    
    	p.s. - I don't mean to give the impression that I am speaking for
    	       all LDS in this NOTES file. I'm not & I hope I've not
    	       offended anyone by giving that impression.  Dave
               

re: 237.35

>Perhaps I should ask you a similar question: If further genetic research 
>continues to demonstrate that no Indians can be found who have Semitic
>roots, will you begin to change your opinion of the Book of Mormon? 

My opinions about the Book of Mormon are always subject to change, since an 
opinion tends not to be based in positive knowledge or proof.  Due to the
way in which the question was asked, I can say that the point is moot because
my opinion of the Book of Mormon is constantly changing.  My testimony of it
as an inspired work does not.  If I were to replace 'opinion' with 'testimony'
the answer would be that my testimony would be unchanged.  Our inability to 
find something does not mean that it does not exist, especially if the
search is limited to only a few places and times when something can occur.
    
    
Steve

    re .36
    
    Dave, thanks for sharing that, but perhaps your topic would be better
    served in note 118. I would be happy to respond to what you have
    said (in fact I'm anxious to), but this is not the right place.
    
    Ed
    

    	RE: 237.38
    
    	Ed, I realized that what I said wasn't entirely on the subject.
    	My apologies or the digression. I just felt it needed to be said
    	in this  note. I would be delighted to have you respond to what 
    	I said. I'll see you in 118. 
    
    	God bless, Dave.

    Just a quick one...
    
    I just received a catalog for Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary
    a few days ago, where I am considering getting a Masters in Theology
    - and lo and behold!  Listed under Oriental Languages were the
    following: Hebrew (!), Aramic, Northwest Semitic, and Ugaritic (?).
    
    "Oriental" may in fact, mean "Middle Eastern" as someone brought
    up.
    
    		Sheryl
    

    Re .40:
    
    Yup, it does. BTW, Sheryl, you might be interested to know that
    Gordon-Conwell is pretty much a doctrinaire Orthodox Christian seminary
    where LDS folks may not be held in very high regard! Be prepared
    for some strange reactions.....the former student intern of my
    Congregational Church and our last Pastor were Gordon-Conwell alumni
    and they regarded any group that wasn't Orthodox Christian (LDS,
    JW's, Moonies, etc) as cult groups.
    
    While I disagree with 99.99% of LDS doctrine, as I have stated
    previously, I don't regard LDS'ers as cult members - a sect of
    Christianity perhaps, but not really a cult. If Joseph Smith and
    the others were worshipped, then we'd have a different ball game
    but since as far as I know they are not, then the LDS is really
    a sect.
    
    Oh well, that's way off the subject....just thought I'd throw in
    my $.02.
    
    Mark
    
    P.S. BTW, my Masonic affiliation made me a "cultist" in the eyes
    of our former student intern also so don't feel like the Lone Stranger!

    Sheryl,
    
    As far as Hebrew being regarded as an oriental language, it certainly
    seems to me that "oriental" has a different connotation when referring
    to languages than to races.
        
�    P.S. BTW, my Masonic affiliation made me a "cultist" in the eyes
�    of our former student intern also so don't feel like the Lone Stranger!
    
    Mark,
    
    Since you are a Mason, you may find it interesting to investigate
    the parallels between the Masonic rituals and Mormon Temple rituals. 
    I am not a Mason, but I have read/heard that the similarities between 
    the two are remarkable.
    
    BTW, in regards to what is a 'cult' and what isn't, some use, as
    a test, what the group in question does with the person of Christ.
    If they make him out to be different from the Christ of the Bible,
    then the group is regarded as a cult. According to this standard,
    the Mormons would be considered a cult, although I'm sure they would
    vigorously insist otherwise. As far as Masonry being a cult, I cannot
    comment, either according to the standard I just mentioned, or any
    other, for I know too little about it. My personal impression of
    a cult is a religious organization that holds some sort of strong, 
    direct influence over it's members, which, to me, is not true of
    Masonry, and I don't know enough ex-Mormons to draw a conclusion
    in that respect as well...
    
    Sounds like you don't hold Gordon Conwell in very high regard...
    (what is "doctrinaire", btw?)

    Ed

    Ed,
    
    How, in your opinion, do Mormons make Christ out to be different from 
    Chrsit of the Bible?  (Probably another topic ...)  I think you're
    right about 'oriental' referring to language rather than genetics in
    the example given.  I thought about that, too.
    
    Steve

I moved several replies that concerned cults to note 11.

I moved several replies that concerned Masonry to note 247.

Last night on the 5:30 report on NPR radio they interviewed a Dr. Pope,
an archaeologist out of Urbana, Illinois.  He recently published a paper
refuting the "Eve" theory citing fossil evidence.  He claims that if the
"Eve" theory were true there should have been corresponding fossil evidence
that would track the genetic changes as they occurred.  He claims that
fossil evidence instead tends to remain the same in each region over those
periods of time.  He hypothesized that current human races are probably 
"hybrids" of different races.  I don't understand all of this, especialy since
the article was rather limited, and may have missed on some of the details.
Did anybody else hear the article or have a chance to read the publication?
I think that the publication is in the same journal that published the original 
"Eve" thesis.

Steve

	American Indians descendants of a single band of pioneers,
	researcher says.

	Associated Press

	BAR HARBOR, Maine


	Nearly all American Indians are descendants of a single band of
	pioneers who walked across what's now the Bering Strait from Asia
	15,000 to 30,000 years ago, a genetics researcher said Thursday.

	The descendants of this hardy group make up 90 percent of American
	Indians, including the Mayans, Incas and many other spread 
	throughout North, Central and South America.  "It was clearly a 
	small migration," Wallace said of the ancestral group.  He based 
	his findings on studies of the genes that are related to the body's 
	energy production.  The genes were extracted from blood samples
	from members of three different Indian groups.

	In a presentation during a genetics course at the Jackson Laboratory
	in Bar Harbor, Wallace also reported using the same energy-producing
	genes--called mitochondria--to identify for the first time the cause
	of a form of epilepsy.

	Studies of the genes allow researchers to trace maternal ancestry.

	The research on American Indians showed that the vast majority
	descended from four women in that original migrating group.

    Any details about how the claim that 90% of American Indians descended
    from this group was extracted from the data gathered from only three
    different Indian groups?
    
    Steve

	RE: Note 237.48 by MIZZOU::SHERMAN 

>    Any details about how the claim that 90% of American Indians descended
>    from this group was extracted from the data gathered from only three
>    different Indian groups?
    
	What you see is what we got.  I only have that information out of
	todays paper.

    
    The strength of this genetic discovery lies in the fact that 'only'
    3 Indian groups were selected for DNA analysis. The Pima-Papago
    Indians of Arizona, the lowland Maya of the Central America's Yucatan
    Peninsula and the Ticuna of the extreme upper Amazon are considered
    to be the most widely seperated tribes and have remained largely 
    untouched by the ravages of the white-man. Further studies are planned
    with more extensive analysis of mitochondrial mutation in South
    American Indians, however, the genetic evidence preserved by maternal 
    lineage is obvious.  

I think this is really interesting.  If tribes that are separated geographically
have a common genetic ancestor, then it is a reasonable assumption that
tribes in between have the same ancestor.

From the viewpoint of genetics, the Mormon claim of the Book of Mormon
being true should be considered a hypothesis that people from the near East
immigrated to the Americas and intermarried with the native Americans who
have descended from Ice Age peoples.  Regardless of whether we as individuals
accept or reject this claim, the claim can be viewed as a hypothesis, and
I'm wondering what effect this genetic research has on it.  That is, can
this research show scientifically whether immigrations have or have not
occurred? 

Allen

	Perl, Rebecca: Indian's Roots Linked to Lone Band of Immigrants,

	Gazette Telegraph, [Colorado Springs, CO], August 10, 1990: E1


	    Genetic studies of Indians from the Arizona desert to the Amazon
	rain forest are lending new support to the theory that most Indians
	in the Americas today descended from a small band of hunters who 
	migrated from Siberia to Alaska 15,000 or more years ago.
	    Dr. Douglas Wallace, an Emory University geneticist, says inherited
	similarities among today's Indians make it likely that 95 percent
	descended from a single group of immigrants--possibly as few as four
	families who crossed the "land bridge" that once linked Asia with
	North America.
	    Although archaeological evidence already shows that much of
	America was populated by human beings between 15,000 and 30,000 years
	ago, anthropologists--and linguists puzzling over the origins of the 600
	or so Indian languages the evolved--cannot agree whether they arrived
	in a single migration or successive ones.
	    Wallace's evidence, based on genetic analysis of mitochondria, the
	sausage-shaped structures in cells that turn food to energy, lends
	strong support to the theory that all Indians who speak American-
	based languages--the mother tongue for virtually all tribes in south-
	ern Canada, the United States, central and South America--share a
	common ancestry.
	    "The mitochondria suggest these Indians were founded by a single
	migration and the tribes radiated out from this group," said Wallace.
	"This can be extrapolated to linguists too.  There was one language
	and all the current dialects were derived from it."
	    In tracing family trees , the genes of the mitochondria are
	proving to be an exceptional tool.  Because they are passed, unchanged,
	from the mother to her offspring--with no genetic input from the
	father--they only change as a result of mutation.
	    Because the mutation rate is predictable, he says, the mitochondria
	act as a virtual biological history book of women that can be used not
	only to trace a people's lineage, but ultimately to date it.
	    From mitochondria clues, some scientists claim they can trace the
	origins of modern man to the biological equivalent of "Eve"--an
	African woman who lived about 200,000 years ago.
	    The contrast between the widespread presence of the distinctive
	genetic markers in the Americas and their rarity in Asia makes it
	likely that American Indians descended from a small number of families
	with Siberian origins, Wallace believes.
	    For now, his conclusions are based on blood samples from 100
	Indians from widely separated groups--the Pime and Papago in Arizona,
	the Maya in Mexico and the Ticuna of the Amazon River basin.
	    Wallace said he is now looking at 15 additional tribes to see if
	his theory holds up.  In time, he also hopes to help pinpoint where
	in Siberia the first Americans came from--and when they crossed the
	Bering Strait.
	    A majority of linguists say Indian languages now used in South and
	Central America could only be as diverse as they are today if they had
	evolved from several tongues spoken by as many as 10 different waves
	of immigrants.
	    "I find it hard to believe that if the New World could be entered
	it would be entered only once in 15,000 years," said Johanna Nichols,
	a linguist at the University of California at Berkley.
	    But Wallace says his findings support the theories of Stanford
	University linguist Joseph H. Greenberg, who contends, on the basis
	of subtle similarities, that all Amerind (sic) languages evolved from
	a single tongue.
	    Archaeological and linguist evidence suggests that there were at
	least two later waves of migration from Asia--one about 12,000 years
	ago that brought Na-Dene-speaking peoples to the interior of Alaska
	and northern Canada and another wave about 7,000 years ago that brought
	Eskaleut-speaking people to the Arctic and costal regions of Alaska,
	Canada and Greenland.

    Thanks, Charles, for the information on Wallace's Theory.  As an old
    linguist myself, I find it curious that the linguists cannot agree on
    the source of the INdian language's, i.e. one common source vs. several
    immigration waves.
    
    What it says to me is that a clear picture of Pre-Columbian history,
    archeology, anthropology, etc. is still evolving and that like a
    picture puzzle new pieces are being found that right now seem to be
    confusing, but which will at some future time be clear.
    
    I guess for now theories are just that, theories.
    
    Paul

    re: -.1  Ditto. :)
    
    Steve