Author: Jonathan Neville

Uncategorized

The missionaries are defenseless – Part 3c – DNA and evolution

Gospel Topics DNA essay – Part 3c – DNA and evolution

The DNA Gospel Topics essay is actually part of a long-running debate between Bible literalists and scholars who think the Bible is merely metaphorical and useless as a guide to understanding the Creation. It is also part of the debate over Book of Mormon geography because the proponents of the Mesoamerican and two-Cumorahs theories also reject Biblical literalism.
The principal author of the essay, Ugo Perego, contributed a brief essay to the Book of Mormon Archaeological Forum (BMAF), an organization whose Mission Statement is “to increase understanding of the Book of Mormon as an ancient Mesoamerican codex.”
BMAF is also the parent corporation that owns Book of Mormon Central (BOMC), which explains why BOMC adamantly and exclusively promotes the Mesoamerican and two-Cumorahs theories.
Here is the statement by BMAF, with my comments in red:

DNA Statement by Book of Mormon Archaeology Forum
Please, don’t fall for the DNA “evidence” being promoted by some members of the Church. We believe in the Book of Mormon with all our being, [as a Mesoamerican codex] but we also believe when we use science to prove something, then we should consult the experts and follow basic scientific methods. [This is a clever straw man fallacy. No one involved here is using DNA science to proveanything, but as we’ll see, the DNA evidence may corroborate the Book of Mormon narrative—just not in Mesoamerica, which is why BMAF wrote this statement.]
The Church (approved by the First Presidency on LDS.org) has just released a statement about using DNA to promote a Book of Mormon agenda:
“Much as critics and defenders of the Book of Mormon would like to use DNA studies to support their views, [notice, the actual essay refers to support, not proof] the evidence is simply inconclusive. Nothing is known about the DNA of Book of Mormon peoples. [As I mentioned before, I think it’s safe to say we know Lehi’s people were of Hebrew descent and came from Jerusalem, which narrows down the possibilities from the entire universe of DNA to a fairly small subset of DNA possibilities, which is not “nothing.” A better phrase might be “Little is known.”] Even if such information were known, processes such as population bottleneck, genetic drift, and post-Columbian immigration from West Eurasia make it unlikely that their DNA could be detected today. [The “unlikely” characterization is based on the undisclosed Mesoamerican assumption that Lehi’s people were all absorbed into a much larger Mayan culture. This is why it is so telling that the essay never even quotes from the scriptures, except in footnoted materials written to support the Mesoamerican theory.] https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng.”
Book of Mormon and DNA Studies
www.lds.org
From Ugo Perego, PhD
There is a video circulating widely on the internet about NEW INCREDIBLE DNA EVIDENCE in favor of the Book of Mormon. I want everyone to know that I do not support the views presented in this video (here is the link on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mADM3RYKl5Y&feature=youtu.be).
I personally believe the Book of Mormon to be sacred scripture, but not based on genetic evidence. [Which is also undoubtedly true of everyone who believes the Book of Mormon to be sacred scripture; i.e., no one has a testimony based on genetic evidence.]

It is my opinion that the presenter in this video (Rod Meldrum) [We’ll discuss what Brother Meldrum presents later; for now, I’m explaining the context of the Gospel Topics essay and some of the motivations for the way it is written and footnoted.]
is oversimplifying and stretching complex scientific data to fit its own view and purposes. [Simplifying is how any scientific information is presented to the public. I suggest readers consider this point once we delve into what Brother Meldrum was actually saying.]
This is dangerous because some people might actually believe in what he is saying and take for granted his conclusions. [This is equally true of every side of these debates, of course. Brother Perego implies that one side is right—his—and one side is wrong—Brother Meldrum’s. Brother Perego’s conclusions are based on Darwinian evolution; some people think taking evolution for granted as an explanation for the creation is a dangerous approach. This is really a debate about Biblical literalism, as we’ll see.]
I have listened to Rod Meldrum in the past and spoke with him on several occasions. I have also tried to explain to him the mistakes with his approach, but to no avail. [I can’t speak for Brother Meldrum, but I have also spoken with Brother Perego and I think I understand his objections. But he doesn’t understand, or doesn’t accept, and certainly doesn’t acknowledge, the counterarguments to his position.]
Here are in a short few points the main problems with the information presented in this video:
1. Lineage (haplogroup) X in the America [sic] is an unusual marker, but there is absolutely no evidence to link it to Book of Mormon people. [This absolute argument is in the same vein as the claim that we know nothing about the DNA of Lehi’s people. The evidence may not be substantial, may not be conclusive, may not be persuasive to Brother Perego and others, but there is some evidence of a link. I’ll discuss the merits in more detail later, but for now, consider that haplogroup X in the Americas is concentrated around the Great Lakes region and the northeastern U.S. and southeastern Canada. The only place in the scriptures in which the Lord designated specific people as Lamanites was in D&C 28, 30 and 32, when he sent Oliver Cowdery and three other brethren to preach to the Lamanites in New York, Ohio, and Missouri/Kansas (where they had been driven from the eastern states.) This geographical connection between haplogroup X and the revelations in the D&C is evidencein any sense of the term. The probity and utility of the evidence can be examined and debated, but it is not “absolutely no evidence.”]  

2. As far as science has been able to determine to date, lineage X has been in the Americas probably long before Book of Mormon times (based on both carbon dating and the molecular clock). [The question of dating is really the crux of the matter. As the footnotes in the Gospel Topics essay explain, Brother Perego says lineage X has been in North America since around 7,000 B.C. This date is long after X separated from other, earlier lineages, and is in line with the standard evolutionary assumption that the first homo sapiens evolved around 200,000 years ago. The “molecular clock” referred to in the essay is an assumption about the mutation rate of biomolecules that measures evolutionary rate variation among organisms, again based on the 200,000- year-old evolutionary development of homo sapiens. “Carbon dating” is the technique used to determine the age of an object by measuring levels of radiocarbon (C-14). These two measurement techniques contradict the Biblical account of Adam and Eve, which is how this discussion of DNA implicates Bible literalism. In other words, people who interpret the Bible literally believe Adam and Eve were created around 4,000 B.C., based on the chronology given in Genesis. Mormons who interpret the Bible literally find corroboration in the Book of Mormon, D&C, and Pearl of Great Price. At least with respect to Adam and Eve, they are on common ground with Bible-believing Christians. Literalists think there are problems with the carbon dating and molecular clock that explain why those methods contradict the scriptures. For them, the Gospel Topics essay is problematic because it rejects Biblical literalism outright.]
   

3. It is not true that the first four lineages in the Americas prior to the discovery of haplogroup X are identical to lineages found in Asia. They are related with each other, but the ones in the Americas have their own unique characteristics. [This is an important clarification; these lineages changed as people migrated to the Americas from Asia, whether they were Jaredites or other Asian peoples.] 

4. Likewise, lineage X in Northern North America has its own unique characteristics and it is not found anywhere else in the world. The one in the Americas is known as lineage X2a. [This is what we would expect of Lehi’s DNA as well; i.e., that it would be unique after some period of time in North America.]
5. There are other lineage X’s in the world (Europe, North Africa, Middle East and Asia) but none of them is the same as their American counterpart X2a. [Again, exactly what we expect of Lehi’s DNA. Lehi left Jerusalem shortly before the Babylonian siege and invasion. That invasion was a genetic bottleneck; only the poorest people were left in the land, with 10,000 taken to Babylon. It would not be surprising that the DNA of Lehi’s group was unique (X2a) because their relatives were killed.] 

6. It is not true that lineage X was identified in the Americas in 2003. Data on a fifth lineage in the America has been widely published since 1991. [Good point of clarification.]

7. All the DNA that has been talked about in this video is referred to a [sic] genetic molecule known as mitochondrial DNA that is transmitted exclusively along the unbroken maternal line. This means that this approach cannot be easily used to determine the genetic ancestry of male lineages such as those described in this video and in the Book of Mormon. In other words, this is not the DNA we would expect to find today from Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, Lehi, Nephi, etc. [Good clarification, but mDNA is still used to trace migrations. This mDNA would be coming from the women in Lehi’s group and would still represent their Hebrew and Middle-Eastern origins.]
8. The LDS Church does not support DNA evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon. [Nowhere does the essay say this, of course. The essay claims there is no DNA evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon, not that the Church would not support such DNA evidence if it existed. And the main reason why the essay claims there is no DNA evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon is because of its assumption that Darwinian evolution explains how humans arrived on the earth, a product of evolution around 200,000 years ago.] Here is something more official found on the LDS.org website: https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies… [In classical citation cartel practice, Brother Perego cites his own essay, although, to be fair, he is a world expert on the topic, which I respect, so I don’t have a problem with this. But the Gospel Topics essay is unsigned, and people who read this BMAF version should be aware that Brother Perego wrote both essays. Actually, his BMAF essay is more accessible and understandable than the Gospel Topics version, but the gist is the same. The Gospel Topics essay is only partly a response to anti-Mormon critics; it is also an argument for why Church members should not believe Brother Meldrum and the link between the X2a haplogroup and the Book of Mormon.] 

There is much more to it but this should be sufficient for now. It is too early to know for sure what the actual relationship of lineage X in the Americas with the Old World is and we need to be careful to jump at any conclusions at this time.” [This is a fair statement with which I agree, but again, it’s the assumptions about dating that are the underlying issue.]
From this analysis, I hope it’s obvious how the DNA issue here is really a debate over Biblical literalism vs. scientific repudiation of the scriptures.

_____________

Source: Book of Mormon Wars

Uncategorized

Question about numbers at Cumorah

A question has arisen about the numbers of people (Jaredites, Nephites and Lamanites) killed at Cumorah.

This is another reason why I keep saying, every member of the Church should be familiar with Letter VII.
________________

On July 27, 2017, I published a post about this issue. I pointed out that in Letter VII, “Oliver described the remains of the Jaredites as “the ashes of thousands.” Not millions, but thousands. Not even tens of thousands. Just thousands.”

This is consistent with the text, which gives us specific numbers for the last two days of the Jaredite battle. A careful reading of Ether 13 shows that the two million people mentioned were killed long before Cumorah.

“There were additional battles leading up to Cumorah. Even after four years, they could gather only a relatively few people to Cumorah, so few that after six days of battle, there were only 121 people left. The next day, there were only 59 left. Even if we assume that half the people were killed each day, that calculates to about 7,744 on the first day of battle.”

Oliver also wrote that, regarding the Nephites and Lamanites, only “tens of thousands” were killed. This, too, is apparent from a careful reading of Mormon 6 as I explained in that post.

Then why, people are asking, have much greater numbers been assumed for so many years?
________________

First, who says larger numbers were killed?

Book of Mormon Central (BOMC), for one.

They published a KnoWhy that attempts to explain hundreds of thousands of Nephites killed at Cumorah by offering four suggestions:

1. “Mormon May Have Exaggerated.”

2. “A Thousand May Not Actually Mean A Thousand.”

3. “The Army May Actually Have Been Massive.”

4. “230,000 Could Represent Entire Population.”

I was going to make comments on each, but I think anyone can see the serious problems these suggested answers raise. To support their Mesoamerican and two-Cumorahs theories, BOMC is questioning the accuracy of the scriptures and Mormon’s own credibility and reliability.

BOMC includes 15 footnotes, mostly to their like-minded, citation sharing associates such as John Sorenson, FARMS publications, and their own Kno-Whys. But they never once cite Letter VII.

The suitably massive “Hill Cumorah” in Mexico (one of several
proposed by Mesoamerican and two-Cumorahs advocates)

This is another example of the Groupthink that justifies the two-Cumorahs theory by claiming huge numbers of people died at Cumorah, so the hill in New York doesn’t “qualify.” “It would seem that a hill of 500-1,000 meters in altitude would be required,” writes David Palmer, who claimed in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism that “the New York site does not readily fit the Book of Mormon description.”

This theme is a basic premise for the two-Cumorahs theory. You’ll find it throughout the Mesoamerican-promoting LDS literature.

That’s why they’ll never quote or cite Letter VII.
_________________

Our current LDS scholars and educators are not the only ones who have ignored what Oliver and Joseph had to say about Cumorah.

On July 7, 1886, the Millennial Star published an article by Orson Pratt titled “The Hill Cumorah: or the Sacred Depository of Wisdom and Understanding.” This is the article in which Pratt made an important contribution by explaining there were two departments in the Hill Cumorah in New York.

First was Mormon’s depository (Mormon 6:6) and, second, in a different area of the same hill, was Moroni’s stone box from which Joseph obtained the “Original Book of Mormon” consisting of the abridged plates (which I call the Harmony plates, because he translated all of them in Harmony, except the sealed portion).

[As a reminder, the second set of plates Joseph translated, the plates of Nephi (D&C 10), came from the depository itself. Joseph received these in Fayette, where he translated them into 1 Nephi through Words of Mormon. That’s why I call them the Fayette plates.]

Orson Pratt’s explanation was not new; it simply corroborates what Oliver taught, and what Brigham Young and others said Oliver taught, about the depository in the Hill Cumorah in New York.

However, Pratt either forgot about or ignored Letter VII when he, Pratt, wrote about the battles at Cumorah:

“The hill Cumorah, with the surrounding vicinity, is distinguished as the great battlefield on which, and near which, two powerful nations were concentrated with all their forces, men, women, and children, and fought till hundreds of thousands on both sides were hewn down, and left to moulder upon the ground.” Not the tens of thousands Letter VII teaches, but “hundreds of thousands on both sides.”

Regarding the Jaredites, he wrote, “millions fought against millions until the hill Ramah and the land round about was soaked with blood and their carcasses left in countless numbers unburied, to moulder back to mother earth.” Again, not the “thousands” Letter VII teaches, but “millions.”

This wasn’t the first time Orson Pratt lapsed into exaggeration. He wrote an 1840 pamphlet that Joseph later edited to write the Wentworth letter. In his pamphlet, Pratt went on and on about how the descendants of Lehi filled the hemisphere. Joseph edited out all the hemispheric rhetoric and corrected it by explaining that “The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country.”

Simple, plain, clear, and unambiguous.

But the scholars reject what he wrote in the Wentworth Letter.

Just like Letter VII.

(Don’t forget that the Curriculum Committee even edited out this passage from the Wentworth letter when they prepared the Joseph Smith lesson manual.)
__________________

We don’t find fault with Orson Pratt for his enthusiasm and failure to pay attention to what Joseph and Oliver wrote, but we also recognize the mistakes he made and seek to correct them. We certainly shouldn’t be perpetuating them the way BOMC and other proponents of the Mesoamerican and two-Cumorahs theory continue to do.

I’ll repeat: every member of the Church should be familiar with Letter VII.

Joseph and Oliver wanted us to know that Cumorah was in New York, Mormon’s depository was in the same hill, and thousands (not millions) of Jaredites died there, along with tens of thousands of Nephites and Lamanites (not hundreds of thousands of Nephites alone).

Source: Letter VII

Uncategorized

Why we seek consensus

The reason for this blog is to encourage all LDS scholars and educators to agree on a simple point; i.e., that there is one Cumorah and it is in New York.

Such a consensus is critical for many reasons, but the most important is unity and harmony in the Church. A big component of that is eliminating the confusion caused by theories of Book of Mormon geography that rely on the premise that Joseph and Oliver were mistaken about the New York Cumorah. This is a serious problem for missionaries, investigators, and members of the Church generally.

Semantic debates about what is a “narrow neck of land” and where such a feature may be located detract from the larger issues of how our acceptance or rejection of what Joseph and Oliver taught about the Book of Mormon affects our ability to encourage others to read and study the Book of Mormon.

Here are more reasons why I think this consensus is important.

1. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery unambiguously declared that Cumorah was in New York (Letter VII).

2. Their testimony was republished many times and accepted by all of their contemporaries.

3. Brigham Young and others confirmed Oliver’s teaching about Mormon’s depository being located in the Hill Cumorah in New York.

4. Every modern prophet and apostle who has formally written or spoken about Cumorah, including in General Conference, has affirmed what Joseph and Oliver taught.

5. Joseph Fielding Smith warned that the “two-Cumorahs” theory (i.e., the idea that the “real” Cumorah is in Mexico) would cause members to become confused and disturbed in their faith, a warning that has become reality not only for members but for investigators as well.

6. The only reason why LDS scholars and educators reject what Joseph and Oliver taught is because they are convinced the Book of Mormon took place in a limited area of Central America (Mesoamerica). This belief was based on an erroneous assumption in Church history (i.e., that Joseph Smith had something to do with anonymous articles in the 1842 Times and Seasons) and a result-oriented interpretation of the text (i.e., they interpret the text to fit Mesoamerica).

7. Archaeological evidence does not contradict the New York setting; to the contrary, it supports the New York setting, once we accept what Oliver wrote about the numbers of people in the final battles and once we accept what residents in the area reported about finding artifacts, etc.

8. With the New York Cumorah as the starting point, we can understand the text to describe North America, corroborating what Joseph said about the plains of the Nephites, Zelph, the Indians in this country as the remnant of Lehi’s people, etc.

9. Even with the New York Cumorah, there remains plenty of room for various models of the geography for people to study and discuss.

10. There is abundant physical evidence in North America that corroborates the text of the Book of Mormon. When more people focus on this, surely more evidence will become apparent.

We all share a goal of encouraging people to read and study the Book of Mormon. Erecting obstacles for prospective readers by creating confusion about where it took place and by raising doubts about the credibility and reliability of Joseph and Oliver is counterproductive.

And that’s why we need a consensus about one Cumorah in New York.

Source: Book of Mormon Concensus

Uncategorized

The missionaries are defenseless – Part 3b – DNA and evolution

Gospel Topics DNA essay – Part 3b – DNA and evolution

A lot of people have asked me about this Gospel Topics essay on DNA over the years so I’m sharing my notes in this series. It saves me a lot of time when I can answer questions by sending a link to a blog post. Feel free to share the link with others who have similar questions.
___________________

Another point of clarification. Sometimes I hear that lots of people are being baptized into the Church, and none of them raise the issue of Book of Mormon geography and/or DNA. To a significant degree, that is axiomatic; i.e., the people who raise these questions are unlikely to be baptized, especially when the missionaries (and members) are unable to effectively answer the questions.
In this sense, and at the risk of oversimplification, converts are self-selected by lack of awareness, interest, or concern about these issues.
And that’s great. I’m not saying or implying that everyone should be concerned about these issues. 

But by embracing Darwinian evolution, the Gospel Topics essay unnecessarily excludes the millions of people who are concerned about these issues and who accept a literal interpretation of the Bible.

I’m proposing instead that, until we are ready to take a firm position on how and when the Earth was created, a better approach would be to acknowledge multiple working hypotheses, one of which includes a literal interpretation of the scriptures.
_____________________

Converts per 1,000 LDS members – graph by David Allan
As we’ve seen, the number of converts per 1,000 members (about 15/1,000 currently) is about 1/3 of what it was 35 years ago (47.5/1,000). We can think of these as the missing 30 converts per 1,000 members.
I’m told that the most productive area for missionary work, in terms of baptisms per thousand members, is Africa—specifically, West Africa. Even in Western Europe and the U.S., relatively few long-term citizens convert; a high percentage of converts are immigrants from developing countries who self-select as noted above. 
And yes, that seems to be a fulfillment of prophecy, as others have noted (2 Nephi 12), and yes, we love these converts and welcome them with open arms. But what about the missing 30 converts per 1,000 members? (Actually, in some areas of West Africa, conversion rates are 45/1,000 or higher, which means the conversion rates in developed countries is well below 15/1,000. For those interested, there’s lots of information at http://cumorah.com/.)
There’s also no question that the DNA issue has had a tremendous impact on Church members. For many years, LDS people assumed that all the indigenous inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere were descendants of Lehi. This assumption is inexplicable because when Joseph Smith wrote the Wentworth letter, he replaced all of Orson Pratt’s hemispheric rhetoric with the simple and clear statement that the “remnant are the Indians that live in this country.” Yet, as with his teaching about the New York Cumorah in Letter VII, Joseph’s rejection of the hemispheric model was ignored.
The discovery that most of these indigenous people have primarily Asian DNA prompted the 2006 change to the Introduction to the Book of Mormon (from stating the Lamanites “are the principal ancestors of the American Indians” to stating that the Lamanites “are among the ancestors of the American Indians.” Nevertheless, the DNA issue remains a focus of anti-Mormon ministries and critics, which is why missionaries face the question so often.
I think the Asian/Lamanite issue can be easily addressed by the text of the Book of Mormon,* but for now I’m looking at the DNA essay’s approach.
My focus is on missionaries whose investigators are well educated and comfortable with the Internet, especially the millions of traditional Christians who have been trained to ask these questions. These educated, Bible-believing Christians should be well-prepared to accept Moroni’s challenge, but they have to overcome four unnecessary barriers to even take the first step of reading the Book of Mormon. These barriers are explained on their ministry web sites, taught in their Sunday Schools, etc., and our own LDS scholars and educators are making the problems worse because of their Mesomania:
1. Mesoamerican geography, 
2. Asian DNA
3. LDS scholars rejecting Joseph and Oliver, and 
4. Rejecting a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Of course, the missionaries themselves need to understand the questions and responses wherever they go in the world, because sooner or later, these issues will come up everywhere. Already there are anti-Mormon ministries in Africa seeking to undermine the progress of the Church there. And missionaries who don’t have solid answers to these questions may find themselves questioning their faith.
_______________________
This series about the DNA Gospel Topics essay has to do with the essay’s explanation of DNA, but also the unstated, underlying context of the essay (in 3c). 
I’m not a DNA scientist, but the essay is, or should be, intended for general audiences (although, as I pointed out in Part 2, the essay is not really accessible to most teenagers, missionaries, and investigators). I suspect it’s not all that accessible to most members of the Church either, but the main points are set out as I discussed in the last post.
Here, I’m going to discuss aspects of the science that I think matter most to many investigators, missionaries and members. 
I begin by explaining that I respect scientists and I know a bit about the scientific process. I have an MS degree (although the focus was agriculture). In my career I’ve funded university research projects, and I know from those experiences that to a significant degree, the one who pays the bills gets the results wanted. Scientists universally deny this, of course, but when I was reviewing a grant proposal from a high-profile East Coast university, the scientist who was going to do the work (and receive the money) asked me what result I wanted so he could tailor the proposal accordingly. This is not an uncommon practice. 
Mark Twain wrote “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.” This is true of many fields besides science, but we kid ourselves when we assume science is completely objective.
There are always assumptions, many of them unstated but assumed or implied.
__________________________
To reiterate, my focus here is on the implications of this Gospel Topics essay for investigators and members of the Church who believe in a literal interpretation of the scriptures.
The essay is targeted to scientists and those who don’t believe in a literal interpretation of the scriptures.
This is important for two reasons:
1) There are still some LDS people who accept a literal interpretation of the scriptures.

2) There are still many investigators who accept a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Is it ironic that the people most inclined to accept the gospel–people who already believe in the Bible–are the ones who are most likely to find this essay troubling?
The literal interpretation of the Bible holds that Adam and Eve were cast out of the garden of Eden around 4,000 BC. This is based on Biblical genealogy. Moroni alluded to this in Ether 1:3, and picked up the theme in Moroni 10:3. He seemed to think the Biblical account was sufficient, an assumption that appears justified by Moses 1-5 and Abraham 4-5, as well as the temple.**
Modern scriptures corroborate this idea.
2 Nephi 2 relates the story of Adam and Eve as literal people; i.e., the first humans.
Lehi taught, “22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

23 And they would have had no children.”
Obviously, no children would mean no evolution, at least from Adam forward. But evolution can’t explain how Adam and Eve–and all things which were created–would have remained in the state they were in after they were created, forever.
D&C 77:6 says, “Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?

A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.”
I’m not saying that to be a good LDS, you have to accept a literal interpretation of these and other passages, but the Gospel Topics essay doesn’t cite these verses. It doesn’t explain how they relate to the topic of Darwinian evolution, which is implicit in everything this essay teaches about DNA.

This is an important issue because this essay teaches, and ultimately is founded on, Darwinian evolution.
This is not a problem for many members of the Church who think modern science is correct, but for those who do interpret the scriptures literally, it is a big problem.
More importantly (maybe), it’s a problem for investigators who believe in the Bible.
Imagine you’re a devout Christian, but you believe in a pre-existence, or you see the need for modern prophets and revelation, or the Nicean Creed doesn’t make sense to you. In other words, you have some cognitive dissonance between what your church teaches and what you really believe.
The Mormon missionaries knock on your door. Despite your misgivings, you let them in. You discuss your beliefs. You discover an affinity for what they are teaching. It feels right to you, and is consistent with what you’ve always thought. They say they believe the Bible, as do you.
But you’ve heard some things about the Book of Mormon. You ask about the DNA issue. They refer you to this Gospel Topics essay. You study it carefully.
Then you realize that, to accept the LDS faith, or at least to accept the Book of Mormon in spite of what you’ve been told about the DNA problem, you’ll have to abandon your literal belief in the Bible.
In upcoming parts, I’ll explain why.
___________________
* The text tells us the Jaredites came to the new world and soon “began to spread upon the face of the land.” Assuming they crossed Asia and left from the shores of the Pacific (probably from today’s China), we would expect them to have predominantly Asian DNA. Ether’s account relates his own family line, but he was more than 33 generations removed from the brother of Jared. This is many millions of people spreading throughout the land. Coriantumr mentions just 2 million of his people killed in the wars leading up to Cumorah. Moroni wrote only of the people living “in this north country,” implying the rest of the Jaredites lived elsewhere. We would expect their Asian DNA to be diverse and well-represented throughout the continent, except in Northeastern U.S.
In the Northeastern U.S., we have a distinctive DNA haplogroup, again as expected from the text (i.e., assuming Cumorah is in New York). This is the X2 haplogroup, which I will discuss in parts 3c-3e. 
How do we explain the statements of the prophets about Lamanites throughout the hemisphere, when their DNA is Asian? 
The Mayan civilization collapsed around 800-900 A.D. Some of them migrated northward to what is now the Southeastern U.S. After several hundred years of intermarriage, they returned to Central America. We would expect the blood of Lehi to thereby intermingle with indigenous people throughout the Americas, albeit in low concentrations. So we can say, despite the Asian DNA markers, that these people have the blood of Lehi in them.

**It’s interesting to consider that Abraham 4 depicts the plan for the creation, not the actual creation. The implication from Darwinian evolution would mean that the Gods planned billions of years of evolution before the Earth was actually formed, then executed the plan with billions of years of evolution in mortality. This means that, if we accept the scriptures, there is no way to escape creationism; i.e., even if you accept Darwinian evolution, it was planned spiritually first.

Source: Book of Mormon Wars

Uncategorized

The missionaries are defenseless – Part 3a – DNA and evolution

This is a continuation of my series about the practical problems missionaries face because of the Mesoamerican and two-Cumorahs theories. Instead of one long post, I’m breaking it up into smaller pieces to post each day this week.

My focus here is on the implications of this Gospel Topics essay for investigators and members of the Church who believe in a literal interpretation of the scriptures.

First, I re-emphasize what I wrote in Part 1: The missionaries are not “defenseless” in the broad sense of the term. They have the Lord with them (D&C 39:12). They are protected, as we all know, and the Spirit guides and directs them, touches the hearts of the people they meet, etc. But they are defenseless when it comes to answering and even discussing some of the most common questions they get from investigators and former Mormons.

But they are defenseless when it comes to common questions about Book of Mormon geography and DNA posed by investigators, and instead of being defenseless, they could be using these questions to bring people to Christ.
_______________________

I stipulate that a spiritual testimony of the Book of Mormon is the most powerful and enduring witness of the truth we can have. But what are the steps of Moroni’s promise in Moroni 10:3-5?

3 Behold, I would exhort you

(i) that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, 

(ii) that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, 

(iii) from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and 

(iv) ponder it in your hearts.

The first step, then, is that people have to “read these things” first.

The geography and DNA issues are obstacles for those considering whether or not to read the Book of Mormon in the first place. The Mesoamerican and two-Cumorahs theories not only make those barriers higher, but they add the additional barrier of claiming that Joseph and Oliver were ignorant speculators who misled the Church about Cumorah in New York.

How can people “remember how merciful the Lord hath been” unless they know what the Lord has done? That is, they have to remember what they’ve read the Bible, or what they’ve learned about God’s dealings in whatever faith tradition they have grown up in. Some commentators think Moroni is referring to what people read in the Book of Mormon, but the next step clarifies that.

The next step is the one I’m going to discuss in Part 3. “From the creation of Adam even down until” the modern day.

The Book of Mormon expressly omits God’s dealings prior to Lehi leaving Jerusalem, except for some snippets of his dealing with the Jaredites (Ether 1:3), so readers must rely on information outside the text of the Book of Mormon to remember God’s dealings. In most cases, this means they have to read and remember the Bible.

Here we have, in the verses that every missionary shares with every investigator, a reference to the creation of Adam as taught by the Bible. 

Yet the DNA Gospel Topics essay rejects the plain teaching of the Bible (and our other latter-day scriptures) about the creation of Adam in favor of a metaphorical Adam who was either (i) created tens of thousands of years before the Biblical chronology or (ii) created tens of thousands of years after humans occupied most of the planet.

To be sure, I understand there are many different ways to interpret the scriptures regarding the creation of Adam and Eve. However, the Gospel Topics essay adopts the Darwinian evolutionary approach to Adam and Eve and rejects the literal interpretation accepted by many members of the Church and many millions of potential investigators.

In lieu of rejecting alternatives to Darwinian evolution as this essay does, I propose acknowledgement, if not acceptance, of multiple working hypotheses. 

Otherwise, missionaries who refer investigators to the Gospel Topics essay on DNA find themselves trying to reconcile what Moroni said about the creation of Adam with the essay’s adoption of a version of the Adam story that fits within Darwinian evolution.

What’s a missionary to do?

What’s an investigator to do?
_______________________
end of Part 3a

Source: Book of Mormon Wars

Uncategorized

A fair characterization?

I’m hearing some people don’t think it’s a fair characterization when I say that proponents of the Mesoamerican and two Cumorahs theories claim that Joseph and Oliver were ignorant speculators who misled the Church about the Hill Cumorah being in New York.

Whether it’s fair or not may be in the eye of the beholder, but it is accurate. 

At any rate, I’m not trying to be unfair. I’m trying to summarize the position of the Mesoamerican proponents as succinctly as I can. I’d be happy to change the wording if someone can email me a more succinct, descriptive, and accurate clause.
___________________


The basic premise of the “two-Cumorahs” theory is that Joseph and Oliver were ignorant speculators who misled the Church because in Letter VII they declared it was a fact that the final battles took place in the valley west of the Hill Cumorah in New York. They also said that Mormon’s depository (Mormon 6:6) was in the same hill.

Letter VII and the Mesoamerican theory are directly incompatible. Mesoamerican proponents have to believe Letter VII is false. That’s why they invented the “two-Cumorahs” theory in the first place.


In Mormon’s Codex, John Sorenson wrote “There remain Latter-day Saints who insist that the final destruction of the Nephites took place in New York, but any such idea is manifestly absurd.” (Emphasis added.) 

I don’t know any Mesoamerican advocates who disagree with Brother Sorenson about that.

To the contrary, major LDS scholars and educators have endorsed and praised Mormon’s Codex. 

Terryl Givens wrote the Foreword, claiming that “John Sorenson has again upped the ante with what will immediately serve as the high-water mark of scholarship on the Book of Mormon.”

The book was published by Deseret Book Company and the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship at BYU.

Brant Gardner and Mark Alan Wright reviewed Mormon’s Codex, stating that “Sorenson’s name has become synonymous with a specific geographic correlation between the Book of Mormon and a Mesoamerican geography.” They criticized elements they disagreed with, but not Brother Sorenson’s condemnation of the idea of the New York Cumorah. Which is no surprise, because like other Mesoamerican advocates, they too reject Letter VII.

Book of Mormon Central frequently cites Mormon’s Codex in its “KnoWhy” series.

On its home page, BYU Studies links to Brother Sorenson’s maps from his book, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, which are essentially the same ones used in Mormon’s Codex.

Brother Sorenson isn’t the only one who has written about this idea that Joseph and Oliver were ignorant speculators who misled the Church about Cumorah being in New York. In fact, if there are any Mesoamerican proponents who disagree–that is, who accept Letter VII as accurate–I’d very much like to know about them. 

I’ve discussed this point with many of the main Mesoamerican proponents at FairMormon, the Interpreter, Book of Mormon Central, BYU, and BMAF. They all think the New York Cumorah was a false tradition. They all think Joseph and Oliver didn’t know where the Book of Mormon took place, that they speculated, that Letter VII was just their opinion, that Joseph changed his mind later in life, and that he and Oliver were wrong about Cumorah being in New York. 

Because Letter VII was reprinted so many times, even at Joseph’s specific request, and because every one of Joseph’s contemporaries agreed with the New York Cumorah, Mesoamerican proponents claim Joseph and Oliver misled the Church about Cumorah being in New York. (Some try to soften the claim by instead asserting that Joseph passively adopted a false tradition, but that doesn’t account for his repeated endorsement of the letters.)

The Mesoamerican advocates also say David Whitmer was wrong when he said he met the messenger carrying the plates to Cumorah, that Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball and others were relating an amazing joint “vision” of a hill in Mexico when they spoke about how Joseph, Oliver, and others entered the depository in the Hill Cumorah in New York on multiple occasions, etc.

Furthermore, Mesoamerican advocates claim that Joseph Fielding Smith, Marion G. Romney, Mark E. Peterson and others who have formally and specifically spoken or written about the New York Cumorah were all sharing their own opinions–and they were wrong, even when they spoke about it in General Conference.
_________________

If anything I’ve written in this post is inaccurate, I’d be happy to correct it. 

Meanwhile, right now the most egregious example or rejecting Letter VII, in my opinion, is the abstract map all new BYU students have to learn. It not only teaches that Cumorah is not in New York (i.e., that Joseph and Oliver were ignorant speculators who misled the Church about that), but that it is in no real-world location. 

If you can’t see Cumorah on this resolution, I put an enlargement below.

The BYU map all new BYU students must learn.
According to BYU, Cumorah is anywhere except in New York.
By comparison, here’s a map of Tolkein’s Middle Earth.


Source: Book of Mormon Concensus

Uncategorized

Deseret News-FairMormon echo chamber

A lot of people have asked me why the Deseret News never covers stories about the North American setting, Letter VII, the two sets of plates, etc.

Many readers have noticed that the Church News this week published two full-page articles about the FairMormon conference. I usually get a lot of questions when this happens, so I’m answering them in advance. There’s no reason for you to be upset with the editorial position these articles represent. It is what it is.

Actually, there’s a good reason for the editorial stance you’ve been complaining about. R. Scott Lloyd, who writes most of these articles, has been covering FairMormon since at least 2003.

http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/44197/Intellectual-defense-of-the-faith.html

He is good friends with Daniel Peterson, who runs the adamantly anti-Heartlander magazine the Interpreter. In fact, one of the articles you’ve seen this week is a full-page report on Dan’s speech at FairMormon (in the print edition).

Here are the digital editions if you didn’t see the print edition:

Religion Does Make a Difference, FairMormon Speaker Says

Contributed By R. Scott Lloyd, Church News staff writer

https://www.lds.org/church/news/religion-does-make-a-difference-fairmormon-speaker-says?lang=eng

History Skills Can Strengthen Study of Book of Mormon Witnesses, Speaker Says

Contributed By R. Scott Lloyd, Church News staff writer
https://www.lds.org/church/news/history-skills-can-strengthen-study-of-book-of-mormon-witnesses-speaker-says?lang=eng

These are fine articles. Nothing objectionable about them at all. I especially enjoyed the one on history skills.

But don’t expect to ever see something in the Deseret News that disagrees with Dan Peterson’s position. Who, by the way, is a nice guy on a personal level. He just happens to have a long track record of strongly opposing the North American setting for the Book of Mormon, from FARMS through the Interpreter.

Plus, he writes a weekly column for the Deseret News.

The title of this post comes from a piece I read in the Wall St. Journal today that helps explain why you’ll never see FairMormon or the Deseret News cover the topics I mentioned at the outset.

“Echo chambers maintain themselves by creating a shared spirit and keeping discussion confined within certain limits. As Noam Chomsky once observed, ‘The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.’”

I once had an experience with Dan Peterson’s Interpreter that exemplifies this echo chamber mentality. Their web master refused to allow a comment I made to their online journal because it challenged Mesomania. He wrote me a private email that I’ll keep private but the gist was, they think they have a lively debate because they allow people to debate whether the river Sidon is the Grijalva or the Usumacinta. [These are two rivers in Mesoamerica.]

As long as Scott Lloyd is writing the articles in the Church News, they will be friendly with Dan Peterson and Mesomania. Granted, neither of the articles I linked to today focus on Mesomania, but the FairMormon conference definitely did.

Just as we know FairMormon’s Mesomania prevents them from allowing a fair comparison of the different theories of Book of Mormon geography, or even a balanced representation of the North American setting, Letter VII, or the two sets of plates (because of the implications for the New York Cumorah), we can’t expect the Deseret News to do so. They are one unit, in terms of editorial stance.

That said, enjoy the articles. Just don’t expect anything different.

Source: Book of Mormon Wars

Uncategorized

Suggestions for Church curriculum – structure of the Book of Mormon

Church curriculum is awesome, well adapted for various age groups and interests.

There’s a graphic on this page that depicts the common understanding of the structure of the Book of Mormon and how it was translated:

https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-video-guide/chapter-2-1-nephi-9?lang=eng

Here is the graphic:

The graphic has these problems:
1. It doesn’t explain where the source plates were; i.e., in Mormon’s depository in the Hill Cumorah (Mormon 6:6).
2. It suggests that somehow the “small plates” were inserted into the abridgment. This explanation has never made sense because (i) the Title Page, on the last leaf of the plates Joseph got from Moroni’s stone box, does not mention any original plates; (ii) Joseph translated all of the plates in Harmony, including the Title Page on the last leaf; (iii) when he got to the end of this set of plates, Joseph wondered if he should retranslate from the beginning to replace the lost 116 pages; (iv) in D&C 10, the Lord told Joseph he’d have to translate the plates of Nephi, but he didn’t have the plates of Nephi when he was in Harmony.
3. The diagram doesn’t show how Joseph got the plates of Nephi directly from the depository in the Hill Cumorah after he moved to Fayette, NY. He didn’t get them from Moroni’s stone box.
I suggest replacing that graphic with this one which more clearly explains what plates Joseph translated and where.  

Source: Book of Mormon Concensus

Uncategorized

Letter VII in British pamphlet

I’ve mentioned the 1844 pamphlet published in Liverpool that includes Letter VII.

The Millennial Star began publication in May 1840. The second issue, June 1840, contained excerpts from Oliver’s letters. The first letter was published in full in January 1843, accompanied with a promise to publish all of them in a pamphlet.

Oliver was not a member of the Church when these reprints were published, but he had been Assistant President of the Church when he wrote the letters and members considered them important and authoritative (unlike Phelps’ answers, which were never approved by Joseph Smith or reprinted).

This publication history shows that Oliver’s letters were reprinted continuously from 1840 through 1847 with Joseph’s express permission and encouragement, as well as his implicit approval.

You can see copies of the original here:
 https://archive.org/details/lettersbyoliverc00oliv

and here:
http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/NCMP1820-1846/id/2828

People have asked about it so here is the background information provided by Peter Crawley, who has done a phenomenal job with his Descriptive Bibliography.

This entry is available here:
https://rsc.byu.edu/es/archived/descriptive-bibliography-mormon-church-volume-1/entries-101-200.

197 COWDERY, Oliver. Letters by Oliver Cowdery, to W. W. Phelps, on the origin of the Book of Mormon, and the rise of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Liverpool: Published by Thomas Ward and John Cairns, 36, Chapel Street. 1844

48 pp. 17.5 cm. Yellow printed wrappers.
Oliver Cowdery’s eight letters to W. W. Phelps, first published in the Messenger and Advocate between October 1834 and October 1835, constitute the earliest printed account of the birth of Mormonism. Extracts from the letters were included in the Millennial Star for June and September–November 1840, and the letters were reprinted more or less in full in the Times and Seasons of November 1–December 15, 1840, and March 15–May 1, 1841. They were again republished in the sixth number of the Gospel Reflector (item 95). A comparison of the various printings makes it clear that the pamphlet Letters by Oliver Cowdery was taken from the Gospel Reflector.[226]
Thomas Ward included the first letter in the Millennial Star of January 1843 and announced there that he intended to publish all eight in pamphlet form. One year later the Star noted that Letters by Oliver Cowdery was in press, and in February 1844 it advertised the pamphlet as just published, price 6d. each, or 5s. per dozen. The Star advertised it again in November 1846, now at 3d. And the European Mission financial records show that during 1847 the Millennial Star office sold about nine hundred copies at a wholesale price of 2d. each.[227]
It is the second work co-published by John Cairns (see item 102). The verso of the title page bears the imprint Liverpool: Printed by James and Woodburn, Hanover-Street, while the colophon at the foot of p. 48 reads Liverpool: Printed by James and Woodburn, South Castle Street. It was issued in yellow wrappers, the title page, with an added line “Truth will prevail” following Latter-day Saints, reprinted within an ornamental border on the front, and book advertisements on the back.
Cowdery’s first letter describes his initial contact with Joseph Smith, his participation in translating the Book of Mormon, and the appearance of John the Baptist which he and Joseph Smith shared. In the third letter he moves back in time and discusses the revival led by Rev. Lane in the Palmyra area, the attendant religious excitement, and the Smith family’s religious seeking—events that are usually associated with Joseph Smith’s 1820 vision. At this point a curious textual change occurs. The version of this letter in the Messenger and Advocate states that this religious excitement occurred during Joseph Smith’s fifteenth year. In the pamphlet 15th is changed to 17th. The fourth letter picks up the narrative and, in the original version, it states that the reference to the fifteenth year in Letter III was “an error in the type—it should have been in the 17th. . . .This would bring the date down to the year 1823.” The pamphlet version eliminates any reference to an error and, like the original, proceeds from this point with an account of the appearance of the angel to Joseph Smith on September 21, 1823, an event that is entirely unrelated to the religious excitement described in the third letter. These changes follow the Gospel Reflector, so Benjamin Winchester must have been responsible for them.[228]
Whatever was intended in Letter III, certain problems persist. Joseph Smith’s seventeenth year was 1822, not 1823. And Rev. George Lane was most prominently in the Palmyra area in 1824–25.[229] It is conceivable that Cowdery shifted the date after realizing he had introduced Lane at the wrong time. It is also possible that he described the events leading up to Joseph Smith’s 1820 vision in Letter III with the intent of recounting it in Letter IV; then, after Letter III was printed, he decided not to mention the vision, which at the time was not openly discussed (see item 82).
Letter VII continues the account of the angelic visitation on September 21, 1823, and of the events just following. It includes a description of the Hill Cumorah, where Joseph Smith obtained the plates. Letter VIII further describes Cumorah and relates the vision he had at this spot. The next-to-last paragraph refers to a trial he was subjected to sometime between 1823 and 1827—undoubtedly the trial at South Bainbridge, New York, in 1826.[230] The pamphlet concludes with a short letter from Joseph Smith, first published in the Messenger and Advocate of December 1834, in which he comments on his early life.
Flake 2546. CSmH, CtY, CU-B, DLC, ICHi, MoInRC, UHi, UPB, US1C, UU.

Source: Letter VII