Simon Southerton's Blog: DNA and the Book of Mormon

Google Apostasy in Australia and New Zealand

2012-02-11T22:00:00.000-08:00

In December 2011 ElderMarlin K. Jensen, an LDS general authority who has served as church historianand recorder since 2005, made some surprising admissions about current trendsin church activity. He admitted that thechurch is currently losing a lot of its members; even referring to currentevents as an apostasy.

Elder Jensen wasattending a Q&A session set up by Phil Barlow at Utah State University. Awoman asked the following question.

“Has the church seen theeffects of Google on membership? It seems like the people who I talk to aboutchurch history are people who find out and leave quickly. Is the church awareof that problem? What about the people who are already leaving in droves?”

This was part of Elder Jensen’sresponse

“The fifteen menreally do know, and they really care. And they realize that maybe sinceKirtland, we never have had a period of, I’ll call it apostasy, like we’rehaving right now; largely over these issues. …

We realize that peopleget their information basically from Google. They don’t come to LDS.org. Ifthey get there, it’s through Google. So, we are trying to create an offeringthat will address these issues and be available for the public at large and tothe church leaders, because many of them don’t have answers either. It can bevery disappointing to church members. And, for people who are losing theirfaith, or who have lost it, we hope to regain to the church.”

A link to a transcriptof the interview can be found here.

This is the first timeI have heard a general authority so honestly admit the church is losing a significant number of its members. The church is typically very guarded about its activityrates, always preferring to paint a positive picture of church growth. MostMormons believe that the LDS church is one of the fastest growing churches inthe world. This is not surprising as this is the image the leadership havetended to convey. On the current LDSwebsite this is the first message on the growth of the church that appears onthe “Basic Facts about the Church” webpage.

“According to theNational Council of Churches, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saintsis the second-fastest-growing church in the United States.”

The statistical and membership department of the church knows this is not true but they still allow this sort of misleading information to be published. The National Council of Churches was comparing LDS membership growth with actual attendance of other churches.

Unlike most other Christian denominationsthe LDS Church does not reveal weekly attendance figures to the public. This is not because they don’t know them, asanyone who has served in an LDS ward clerks office will attest. The LDS Churchkeeps detailed records of weekly attendance at sacrament and all other Sundaymeetings. Instead, the church chooses to release only the total membership figures which includes growth due to convert baptisms and natural growth through thebirth of children. What these figures don’t tell us is how many Mormons areactually attending church. Consequently we see a steady increase in the numberof members of the church.

Since the LDS church refuses to releaseweekly attendance figures (in contrast to most other Christian churches) other approaches are required to determine LDS member activity rates. A usefulmethod that has been used by LDS demographers isto track the growth in church congregations, or the total number of wards andbranches. Data on church units can beretrieved from the LDS website or from Cumorah.com. When we look at rates ofgrowth in church units (congregations) we start to get a much clearer pictureof church attendance.

Around the turn of the century there was avery significant change in the trajectory of church growth. In the last 10 years the rate of churchcongregation growth has essentially halved. If congregation growth had continued at pre-2000 rates, there would beover 5,000 more LDS congregations today.

Australiaand New Zealand

The LDS church hastypically grown at a healthy rate in Australia and New Zealand since the mid50s. When I left the church over 12 yearsago the church was consistently adding about 10 new congregations per year.During all of the last decade the church has grown by just 2 congregations. That isabout 100 congregations short of where they expected to be back in 1998 ifgrowth had remained constant. It is worse in New Zealand. There are about 200congregations in New Zealand. Back in the late 1990s the church was consistently addingabout 8 units a year. In the last12 years, the number of congregations has declined by about 9.

The stalled churchgrowth in both Australia and New Zealand is first noticeable in the figures for the year 2000. The total number of Mormons in Australia and New Zealand, like the restof the church, has continued to grow since then. However, the growth in church units has stopped. The only possible explanation for the halt ingrowth of church units is that large numbers of formerly active members have stoppedattending. What makes the lack of growth more alarming for the church is that Australia's population has recently been growing at higher rates than it has seen for about 35 years, growing by over 19% in the period between 1998 and 2010. This means that the LDS church is now shrinking as a proportion of the Australian population.

This suggests that inthe year(s) immediately preceding and including 2000 something changeddramatically in Antipodean societies. Given Elder Jensen’s admissions above, it is obviousthat the widespread availability of damaging historical and scientificinformation on the Internet has severely impacted the church in Australia andNew Zealand. When we compare uptake of the Internet in private homes Down Under (similar for Australia and New Zealand) with the growth in church units this supports the link betweengoogling and apostasy.

Similar, but lessdramatic, slow downs in congregation growth have occurred in otherEnglish-speaking countries such as the United Kingdom and Canada. In contrast, there has not yet been adramatic slow down in the growth of church units in the United States.

Why is the Google apostasymore pronounced in the Antipodes?

There are likely to beseveral factors contributing to the larger apostasy in Australia and New Zealand.

Firstly, theinformation on the Internet will have had greater impact on Mormons farremoved from the heavy population centres in the US. Prior to the Internet, few Antipodean Mormonsknew anything about controversialissues, having little access to LDS scholarship and books critical of the church. Suddenly discovering that Joseph Smith married and had sex with multiple women who were married to living men (some sent away on missions by Smith) is deeply shocking. Not to mention the endless array of problems such as polygamy, seer stone in a hat, Blacks and the priesthood, Book ofAbraham fraud, DNA and Book of Mormon, Hoffman, etc, etc. Polynesians make up a sizeable proportion of the Mormon populations in Australia and New Zealand, and many may have beenshocked to learn via public television that their ancestors came from Taiwan, not America.

Secondly, there are a number of factors that make it mucheasier for a Down Under Mormon to leave the church.

Their extendedfamilies typically include a much higher proportion of non-Mormons. If youleave the church you generally have close relatives to welcome you.

They have many morenon-Mormon friends who are increasingly well armed with hardquestions (also from googling) and have few taboos about asking them.

They almost alwayswork in an environment dominated by or 100% non-LDS. If you leave the churchyour career will not be negatively impacted and may in fact benefit.

They generally don’thave the “handcart pioneer” or the “4^th or 5th generation” heritageUtah Mormons often have. They are either converts themselves or the children ofconverts. Many of the messages from church leaders appeal to these heritagesensibilities to keep members faithful. These messages don’t apply to folks Down Under. That’s Americanhistory, not ours.

The church doesn’t getmuch favorable Press treatment. All serious radio interviewers in Australiaknow a lot more about Mormonism than most members realise. The interviewers who head upthe religious programs are almost invariably atheists.

Australian and New Zealand societies are very secular. Public expression of religious beliefs is generally uncommon. It would be political suicide to wear yourreligion on your sleeve Down Under. Australia’s current Prime Minister has been open about being an atheist.

On balance all thesefactors increase the odds that someone will be deeply troubled by what they find with Google, that they will have less pressure to stay in the church and a softer landing when they leave.

First Encounters with Institutional Mormonism

2012-01-27T06:19:00.000-08:00

Most people familiar with the DNA-Book of Mormon issue will be aware of the vast amounts of apologetic research dealing with the issue. Links to much of this research have even been provided from official church websites. In this post I describe my very first interactions with senior leaders of the church and LDS apologists. There was a stark contrast between the way I was treated by local leaders (who trusted and respected me) and more remote senior leaders and apologists.

I first came across DNA research onNative Americans in July 1998 when I was serving as a Mormon bishop of a wardin Brisbane, Australia. Over a period of about 2 weeks I read about 30 researchpapers that presented the mitochondrial DNA lineages of about 2000 AmericanIndians from about a hundred tribes scattered over the length of the Americas.It was clear that over 99% of their DNA was derived from Asia andwas probably brought into the Americas in excess of 12,000 years ago. DNAstudies also showed that the female ancestors of the Polynesians came fromSouth East Asia and not the Americas.

For two weeks I wrestled with theresearch. I struggled with the complete discrepancy between the research and myunderstanding of the Book of Mormon and the doctrine of the Lamanites. Likeevery Mormon I knew, I believed that Native Americans and Polynesians were largelydescended from Lehi. This doctrine had been reinforced in my mind by everyaspect of the Mormon culture I fully embraced. I knew many Polynesians in the church in Australia and they all thoughtof themselves as Lamanites.

For most of this 2-week period I firmlybelieved that the Book of Mormon was true; but I also had a growing knowledgethat Native Americans were not related to Israelites. The intense cognitive dissonance this created waseventually resolved on the 3^rd of August. When I woke up that morning I no longer believed that there were anyLamanites to be found. I no longer believed that the Book of Mormon was an historical document connected with the true origins of the American Indians. Since I had based my testimony on thetruthfulness of the Book of Mormon, as many prophets had counselled me to do,my belief in the truth claims of the church were also severely compromised.

If I had not been the bishop I couldhave privately dealt with this challenge to my faith. But I was the bishop andI had severe doubts. To continue in my calling was unthinkable. I had noalternative but to ask to be released. I met with my Stake President 2 days later and asked to be released as soon as possible. Within a week I had met with the entire Stake Presidency to discuss myreasons for asking for a release. Alllocal leaders who knew me showed respect and kindness in the waythey treated me. Not once did I detectjudgement or anger. All of us were upsetwith what was happening. I was released about 2 weeks after meetingwith my Stake President and a member of the Stake Presidency acted as bishop until a replacement was found. Releasing a bishop and calling a new one is not a simple process, and typically takes about 6 weeks in Australia.

Mormon Apologists

At about the time of my release the StakePresident introduced me to a man named Warren Aston, who also lived in Brisbane. I was told that Warren was aware of manychallenging issues and may be able to help me solve the problems I wasstruggling with. I gave Warren copies of a couple of the DNA research papers, we spokevery briefly, and we never met again. I learned afterwards that Warren Astonwas a travel agent who specializes in tours to the Middle East. He is also famous in apologetic circles fordiscovering a stone in Yemen with the inscription NHM. Aston claims that thisstone may have been connected with the Book of Mormon location Nahom where Lehibuilt an alter. Intriguingly, noted Mormon scholar Terryl Givens believes that the evidence Astonhas uncovered is among the strongest archaeological evidence in support of theBook of Mormon. Warren Aston is also a noted UFO researcher.

A couple of days after meeting Warren Astonmy Stake President rang to say that he had received a fax for me from theFoundation for Apologetic Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) at Brigham YoungUniversity. The fax had the appearanceof a published research paper, and was authored by Scott Woodward and JohnTvedtnes. Scott Woodward was Professor of Microbiology at BYU and John Tvedtnes was a BYU linguistics scholar who had published numerous apologetic articles on a wide range of subjects.

I was alarmed by the tone and content ofthis document. Just weeks before reading it I had been faithfully servingin the church. To receive a documentlabeling a person like me a critic of the church looking for evidence to teardown the Book of Mormon was extremely disturbing. During my release I had never criticized thechurch. I had also not publicly questioned church teachings. In private meetings I had presented leaderswith the facts I was currently unable to reconcile with my beliefs. I was in fact trying to get in touch withsenior leaders of the church to discuss the difficulties the DNA research wouldcreate for the church in the near future.

I was also very surprised to see ScottWoodward’s name on the FARMS document. I had begun corresponding with Scottabout the research and he had always been very courteous. We were both trying to identify senior leaders we could talk to about the issues raised by the DNA. It turned out thatScott was unaware of the FARMS document. He recalled having a briefdiscussion with Tvedtnes several months previously about the DNA issue. He was very annoyed that his name had been put on the article without his knowledge. To do such a thing in scientific circles would be unthinkable.

Area Leaders
Within in a couple of weeks I received another surprise in the form of aletter from the Area President. I had never spoken to the Area President. I learned afterwards that he had not even spoken to my Stake President. He had written to me based on third hand accounts of what was going on in Brisbane with a wayward bishop. His letter was clearly intended to fill mewith fear and guilt. Fear that I wouldhurt my mother, family and future generations in my family. Fear that I might shake the faith of others who looked up to me. Fear that the eternal lives of my wife andfamily would be put in jeopardy. Fearthat I would become a “hollow shell” of the man that I once was.

All the people I have spoken to who haveknown Elder Featherstone say the same thing. He is a genuinely kind man. Hisletter is simply the natural reaction of a person defending a belief systemthat they are not capable of questioning. He interpreted my actions as a threat tohis beloved church and his letter was aimed at defending the church. I had asked to be released because Ihad honest doubts and it was the correct thing to do. I could not simplypretend that I was not troubled and continue on as bishop. At the time I wasstill shocked and confused and had not even decided that I was going to leavethe Church. Elder Featherstone later apologized for sending the letter without first talking to my Stake President (who was also surprised by the contents of his letter).

After communicatingwith scientists at BYU and reading numerous FARMS publications I wrote to the Area President detailing what I had learned and I asked for his advice. ShouldI accept the new FARMS theories limiting Lehi’s impact to a small colonization andat the same time reject the words of the prophets or should I reject all thescience and go back to what the Book of Mormon and prophets have said? This isthe response I received soon afterwards.

Elder Featherstone's inclusion of dialogue I could memorize and quote tothose inquiring about my status was particularly troubling. Like a mindless zombie I could say...

"We are all triedin different ways in the Church; and through those trials comes eitherincreased faith and greater commitment, or a lost faith. I am committed tospending as much time as I need with the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine andCovenants and the Pearl of Great Price to get my previous witness back again asit was before.”

The thought ofmemorising and then delivering these words to inquiring members wassickening. I had reached the end of theroad. To stay an active Mormon it was clear what my future held. I would have become a pariah and thesubject of pity. The only way I could survive in the church would be to stopthinking, keep my doubts to myself, and to lie to those brave enough togenuinely inquire about how I was getting on.

By December 1998 mywife Jane and all of our children (aged between 5 and 15) had all decided to leavethe church. We moved to Canberra a few weeks later and we have never regrettedour choice to this day. All of our children have happily grown to adulthoodwith no religious beliefs. They are wonderful people who are free to make theirown choices and they are starting to make important contributions to theircommunity.

Is Lehi the father of the Polynesians?

2012-01-13T17:43:00.000-08:00

"We express gratitude that to these fertileIslands Thou didst guide descendants of Father Lehi."

—New Zealand Temple dedicatory prayer, 1958

MormonFolklore

Mormons believe that Polynesians are abranch of the House of Israel that sprouted from the descendants of Lehi, anIsraelite who the Book of Mormon claims sailed to the Americas in 600BC. Mormonfolklore links the Book of Mormon sailor Hagoth (descendant of Lehi who livedin 54 BC), with the colonization of the Pacific. Hagoth was an “exceedinglycurious” Nephite who built very large ships that were launched into the WestSea. These ships transported large numbers of Nephite men, women, and childrenand their provisions to lands northward (Alma 63:5). Many Mormons believe thatsome of these ships got lost and landed in the islands of the Pacific.

Unlike most Mormon theology, which travelsfrom the prophet down, this remarkable Polynesian-Israelite belief appears tohave traveled in a reverse direction, emerging first among missionaries servingin the Pacific. Joseph Smith made no recorded statements related to thisbelief, and in Mormon scriptures we find no explicit statement in its favor. In 1858 prophetic approval was bestowed onthe speculation when Brigham Young declared,

“Those islanders, and the natives of thiscountry are of the House of Israel, of the seed of Abraham”
—Douglas 1974

In 1911 the First Presidency claimed

“The Lord ... directed their course awayfrom this continent [America] to their island homes, that they might not beleft to be preyed upon and destroyed by the more wicked part of the House ofIsrael whose descendants still roam upon this continent in a fallen anddegraded state”

—Joseph F. Smith, Anthon H. Lund, and JohnHenry Smith

Unlike the Polynesians, the inhabitants ofthe western isles of the Pacific bore an unsettling resemblance to members ofthe African race, who according to other LDS revelation had inherited a harshracial curse from God. Eastern Polynesians were thought to possess the faircomplexion of the…

“original [Lehite] stock,” while “Figi[sic] ... Islanders, the New Zealanders, the inhabitants of New Caledonia andthe New Hebrides … have greatly mixed with the Australian race or with theNegroes of New Guinea and the Philipine [sic] Islands.”

—Juvenile Instructor, 1868

Consequently, Melanesia and Micronesia hadvirtually no contact with Mormon missionaries for the next century until thecurse was redefined as applicable only to people who were of African descent. Butin the early history of the church, missionaries were kept away from Fiji, NewGuinea, New Caledonia, and the Caroline and Solomon Islands. The influence ofracial theology is clearly seen in LDS proselyting patterns in the Pacific (figure).Missionaries first reached Polynesia in 1843 and had visited all the majorPolynesian groups by the end of the nineteenth century. Serious efforts toproselyte in Melanesia and Micronesia began in the 1950s, with a rapidexpansion occurring toward the end of the 1970s. The church officially startedbaptizing Fijians and other Melanesians after missionaries consulted withanthropologists at the Fiji museum on Suva Island; Melanesians were judged tobe racially distinct from Negroes (Gordon 1988). The two Polynesian groups notvisited until the twentieth century both have very small populations of about2,000.

ScientificView of Pacific Colonization

Archaeological evidence

“It is extraordinary that the same nationshould have spread themselves over all the isles in this vast Ocean from NewZealand to this Island which is almost a fourth part of the circumference ofthe Globe.”

—Captain James Cook, Easter Island, 1774

The close genetic ties between Polynesians were clearly evident to European sailors from the outset. But did their ancestors come from Southeast Asia or did they come from the Americas? All of the (abundant) scientific evidence points west towards Southeast Asia.

The archaeological evidence suggests thatthere were three major waves of Pacific settlement. The first phase resulted inthe colonization of Australia between 50,000 and 60,000 years ago (Roberts etal. 1990, Thorne et al. 1999). By 30,000 years ago, the original settlers hadspread throughout most of the Australian continent. More recent waves ofimmigration from Papua New Guinea probably occurred as recently as 6,000 yearsago. One group brought domestic dogs, which gave rise to the dingo, a wild dogfound on mainland Australia.

In the next phase the Melanesian islands in the BismarckArchipelago and the Northern Solomons were colonized between 6,000-15,000 yearsago (Bellwood 1987). The settlers of western Micronesia are thought to haveoriginated in Indonesia or the Philippines, while eastern Micronesia appears tohave been settled from Melanesia, possibly Fiji.

The third and final phase of settlement (ofMelanesia, parts of Micronesia, and much of Polynesia) was very rapid (Diamond1988), taking about 2,000 years until complete in about AD 1000. These people shareda common language (Austronesian); strong evidence for a close genealogical link.The ancestors of the Polynesians spread a distinctively styled Lapita pottery,named after an archaeological site in New Caledonia where it was firstdescribed. Lapita pottery, with its striking geometric designs, has been foundall the way from coastal Papua New Guinea eastward to Samoa (Bellwood 1979).

DNA evidence

Polynesians trace their molecular rootsback to Asia. The first survey of Polynesian mitochondrial DNA found that mostof the people they surveyed (90%) from the islands of Samoa, New Zealand, Niue,the Cook Islands, and Tonga had mitochondrial DNA belonging to the B lineage,which is common among Southeast Asians (Hertzberg et al. 1989). The generaltrend is one of a steady increase in the frequency of the B maternal lineage asone moves from Asia to the extremities of Polynesia.

The occurrence of the B lineage in thePacific Islands and the Americas raises the question of recent common ancestry.The Asian, rather than American, origin is supported by the occurrence of uniquemutations in Polynesian B lineage that are found in Southeast Asian B lineagesbut not in Native American B lineages (Sykes et al. 1995).

The distribution of the Polynesian maternalB lineage throughout the World is shown in the figure below. The most widely acceptedhomeland for the ancestors of the Polynesians is Taiwan, but the descendants ofthe original Polynesians mixed considerably with other populations and spreadmost of the way around the globe. The triangle indicates the extent ofPolynesia. The discovery of the Polynesian lineage in the Malagasy from theisland of Madagascar (Soodyall et al. 1995) is a striking testament to themaritime skills of the Polynesians.

Sources: Hertzberg et al. 1989, Lum et al.1994, Lum and Cann 1998, Melton et al. 1995, Murray-McIntosh et al. 1998,Soodyall et al. 1995, Stoneking and Wilson 1989, Sykes et al. 1995.

Rosalind Murray-McIntosh of MasseyUniversity, New Zealand, believes the DNA evidence strongly suggests that therewere a significant number of females in the canoes when the Polynesianscolonized New Zealand. Based on the variation found in the B lineages of theMaoris she estimates that between 50 and 100 women sailed in the colonizinggroup(s) (Murray-McIntosh et al. 1998). This strongly suggests that thesettlement of New Zealand was planned and that it involved numerous boats andpossibly multiple voyages.

A detailed examination of 655 Polynesianmaternal lineages in 1995 revealed that about 6 percent do not belong to the Blineage family (Sykes et al. 1995). Most are related to lineages found among peoplefrom Vanuatu and Papua New Guinea. This is compatible with a colonizationhistory of small groups of skilled seafarers who island-hopped throughSoutheast Asia and Melanesia, mixing with coastal populations. The remaining 2percent of Polynesian lineages were similar to Filipino lineages and others appearedto come from western Europe, most likely the United Kingdom.

The accumulated molecular research strongly supportsa Polynesian genealogy leading back exclusively to Asia. As one movesaway from Asia through the Pacific Islands to the most distant islands of NewZealand, Hawaii, and Easter Island, the number of DNA lineages decreases.Immigration from America would have increased the number of female lineagesnear the New World. Rather, the trend is consistent with an eastward migrationof small founding groups that colonized the islands in succession, each newcolonization resulting in a reduced number of maternal DNA lineages among thosetaking possession of the newly discovered island. The Maoris of New Zealandillustrates the endpoint of this trend, where virtually all individuals possesthe Polynesian B lineage.

References

Bellwood, Peter S. 1979. Man’sConquest of the Pacific: The Prehistory of Southeast Asia and Oceania. NewYork: Oxford University.

Bellwood, Peter S. 1987. ThePolynesians: Prehistory of an Island People, rev. ed. London: Thames andHudson.

Diamond, Jared M. 1988. “Express Train to Polynesia,” Nature 336:307-08.

Douglas, Norman. 1974. “The Sons of Lehi and the Seed of Cain:Racial Myths in Mormon Scripture and Their Relevance to the Pacific Islands, Journal of Religious History 8:90-104.

Gordon, Tamar. 1988. InventingMormon Identity in Tonga, Ph.D. diss., University of California atBerkeley.

Hertzberg, Mark, K. M. Mickleson, S. W. Serjeantson, et al. 1989.“An Asian-Specific 9-bp Deletion of Mitochondrial DNA Is Frequently Found in Polynesians,”American Journal of Human Genetics44:504-10.

Lum, J. Koji, and Rebecca Luisa Cann. 1998. “MtDNA and Language Supporta Common Origin of Micronesians and Polynesians in Island Southeast Asia,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology105:109-19.

Lum, J. Koji, Olga Rickards, C. Ching, et al. 1994. “PolynesianMitochondrial DNAs Reveal Three Deep Maternal Lineage Clusters,” Human Biology 66:567-90.

Melton, Terry, R. Peterson, A. J. Redd, et al. 1995. “PolynesianGenetic Affinities with Southeast Asian Populations as Identified by MtDNAAnalysis,” American Journal of HumanGenetics 57:403-14.

Murray-McIntosh, Rosalind P., Brian J. Scrimshaw, Peter J. Hatfield,et al. 1998. “Testing Migration Patterns and Estimating Founding PopulationSize in Polynesia by Using Human MtDNA Sequences,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States ofAmerica 95:9047-52.

Roberts, Richard G., R. Jones, and M. A. Smith. 1990. “ThermoluminescenceDating of a 50,000-Year-Old Human Occupation Site in Northern Australia,” Nature 345:153-6.

Soodyall, Himla, Trefor Jenkins, and Mark Stoneking. 1995.“‘Polynesian’ MtDNA in the Malagasy,” NatureGenetics 10:377-78.

Stoneking, Mark, and Allan C. Wilson. 1989. “Mitochondrial DNA,” in The Colonization of the Pacific: A GeneticTrail, eds. Adrian V. S. Hill and Susan W. Serjeantson. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Sykes, Bryan, A. Leiboff, J. Low-Beer, et al. 1995. “The Origins ofthe Polynesians: An Interpretation from Mitochondrial Lineage Analysis,” American Journal of Human Genetics57:1463-75.

Thorne, Alan, Rainer Grün, Graham Mortimer, et al. 1999.“Australia’s Oldest Human Remains: Age of the Lake Mungo 3 Skeleton,” Journal of Human Evolution 36:591-612.

Personal account of squaring science with belief

2012-01-10T04:39:00.000-08:00

The following article is a personal, somewhat ramblingaccount of my conversion to Mormonism and my struggles in attempting to squarethe DNA science with my beliefs. Much ofthis was published on the Recovery from Mormonism website in March 2000.

DNA Genealogies of American Indians and the Book of Mormon

Simon Southerton

March 17, 2000

Myname is Simon Southerton, I am married to Jane and we are the parents of fivechildren aged between 6 and 15 years. In early August 1998, the life I hadknown as a Mormon came to an abrupt end. When I woke up on the 3rd of August1998 my mind had finally accepted the truth. Some time during the night mysubconscious had sorted my thoughts of the previous weeks and placed them insome sort of order. The two sides of my mind were on speaking terms and theyset in place an inevitable sequence of conclusions. In the face of a mountainof evidence, my heart finally accepted what part of my mind already knew. TheBook of Mormon was created in the mind of Joseph Smith and is not a historicalaccount of former inhabitants of the American continent.

Thisclash between scientific fact and religious belief occurred while I was servingas a bishop of the Enoggera Ward in Brisbane Australia. Our family left the Church together towardsthe end of 1998. To my surprise I have found that most former Mormons I havecommunicated with since then were once committed believers like me and not themoral bankrupts depicted by the Church. I now fully appreciate the extent towhich the LDS Church conceals truth and controls the flow of information tomembers in order to maintain the faith of the saints.

LIFE AS A LATTER-DAY SAINT

For at least a couple of centuries myfather’s ancestors had been committed members of the Church of England. I discoveredthis in Shrewsbury Library in Shropshire, England as I was researching myfather’s genealogy in the parish of Church Pulverbatch. My father, like hisgrandfathers before him, was a committed Anglican and actively involved in ourparish in Sydney. In early 1970, however, he was experiencing a growingdissatisfaction with Anglicanism. In a sense our family had outgrown theAnglican parish we belonged to. Tensions had arisen between my father and theminister over reverence (silence) during services. My father insisted thatall eight of his children attend the weekly service in addition to SundaySchool. He was sensible enough to know that if we didn’t attend in our youth wewere likely to maintain that habit throughout our lives. As a result of the strainedrelations, my father was in the mood to listen when the missionaries knocked onour door in Sydney. But he did not accept the Church at face value. After aboutnine months of serious investigation most of our family was baptised into the MormonChurch. I was ten years old at the time.

Attending the LDS Church made a changefrom hiding under the house to avoid the Anglicans. I found I enjoyed going toChurch. Early in my youth I had become quite committed to the Church. I hadevery intention of following the prophet. I advanced through the priesthoodwith few distractions. I wanted to serve a mission, marry in the temple andraise a righteous family. The rest of my life would comprise enduring to theend. President Spencer W. Kimball, a white haired, croaky voiced man was theprophet during my formative years. I used to love listening to him speak atconference. The primary message he got through to me was to read the Book ofMormon. He encouraged us all to read it and gain a testimony of itstruthfulness. I generally wanted to follow the prophet and do most of thethings asked of me.

Throughout all of my teenage years myfather was either my bishop or on the stake presidency. He was a committedRotarian, a pillar in the Church and was loved and respected by many members inSydney. I am only aware of one member of the Church that he had a seriousdifference of opinion with. My father was deeply troubled by proselytingmethods missionaries were using in the Sydney Mission while he was a bishop.People were brought to the chapel and taught a very leading and high-pressurediscussion and then committed and baptised on the spot. People had frequentlybeen taught, baptised and had gone inactive before meeting the bishop orattending a single church meeting. My father made certain that the missionpresident (Loren Dunn) knew exactly what he thought of these methods. As aresult the two obviously did not see eye to eye. Loren Dunn returned to SaltLake but was asked to attend our stake conference in place of one of the apostles,several years later. When my father who was serving in the stake presidencyfound out he was coming he knew what was going to happen. He was released by Dunn at the Stake Conference.

I rarely entertained doubts about thetruthfulness of Mormonism. Like most Mormons I may have had fleeting momentswhen I questioned Church teachings, but these were rare, soon chased away inthe knowledge that these doubts originated with Satan. I was generallycomfortable with the teachings of the Mormon Church. Few could not be satisfiedwith the assurance that families can be forever and I saw little reason toseriously question this and other Church teachings. Like most Mormons I didn’tread books that weren’t approved by the Church and seldom read LDS booksapproved by the Church. I was quite content that I, along with many otherMormons, had found the truth and need look no further.

The earliest signs of my emerging interestin science manifest themselves in my efforts as a young boy to grow vegetables.My father was a keen gardener, and wisely suggested I start with radishes, aparticularly child-resistant plant. We spent many happy times together workingin the vegetable garden. He also tried to encourage me to be diligent at schoolbut I was an average student. The only subjects that I was interested in wereagriculture and science and this interest was rarely translated into scholasticeffort. Fortunately I managed a borderline entrance into the agriculturalscience degree at the University of Sydney. My father wanted me to study for acouple years before serving my mission because he felt I was too young to leaveat the age of 18. Sadly my father died suddenly at the beginning of my secondyear at university.

In December 1980, after two years atuniversity, I received my mission call from President Kimball to serve in theAustralia Melbourne Mission. My disappointment at being called to a city justdown the road didn’t last long and I was excited when my new mission presidentwrote to me and welcomed me to the mission field. He asked me in his letter toread the Book of Mormon again before my arrival in Melbourne. I had justfinished reading it weeks earlier, but I immediately started reading it for thesecond time, completing it on the plane to New Zealand on my way to theMissionary Training Centre (MTC). The MTC consisted of two weeks of the mostintensive study I had ever experienced. I was pleased to leave so that I couldget into the mission field in Melbourne.

The morning after my arrival, my missionpresident proudly declared to his new missionaries that “the AustraliaMelbourne Mission, was a tracting, door knocking, house to house mission”.Those were his exact words and he was not wrong. Within days I was knockingdoors for 8 to 10 hours a day between the hours of 9.00am and 9.30pm. I soonbecame accustomed to the workload and within a few months found that I actuallyenjoyed tracting. I used much of this time to memorize scriptures andmissionary lessons as I walked endless miles from door to door. Every hourspent door knocking was tallied up each week and reported to seniormissionaries. I was surprised by the heavy reliance on goal setting andstatistics. I was not a goal setter. There was also a rigid pecking order, withsenior missionaries exercising authority over junior missionaries; however, fewconflicts appeared to occur. There was generally a tremendous sense ofcommunity among most of the missionaries. The odd missionary hated the work andone or two I knew of did virtually no work their entire mission, spending it inshopping malls or surfing.

Within a few weeks of my arrival I beganlike many missionaries to desire my own witness of the truthfulness of the Bookof Mormon. I had never doubted that it was true but I earnestly wanted to havemy own answer to prayer as Moroni promised in the last pages of the Book ofMormon. I had heard many other members and missionary’s say that when they hadprayed about it they had received a confirmation that it was true. I was awilling and diligent missionary and I felt my desire for a witness wasappropriate. I was confident that the Holy Ghost could answer my prayers bycausing a burning or warm feeling in my heart. I was confident that I wouldreceive an answer.

During my evening and morning prayersfor the first three months of my mission I pleaded for a witness that the Bookof Mormon was true. Again and again I asked, but I did not receive the promisedburning in the bosom. I soon became very despondent and so concerned that Ispoke to my mission president. He assured me that the answers come in all sortsof ways and that perhaps I had already received mine. I soon satisfied myselfthat mine had come while reading the Book of Mormon. I even convinced myselfthat I didn’t deserve an answer because it would almost be like seeking a sign.After all I already believed it was true, I just wanted a spiritualmanifestation that it was. I did wonder, however, why my Heavenly Father wouldwithhold an answer to such earnest prayer, particularly when I desperatelywanted it to be true. I felt unworthy and frequently struggled to comprehendthe level of faith that must be required to receive this kind of witness. Iwasn’t expecting a chorus of angels or a vision, just the simple warm feelingsin my heart. I gradually put my concerns aside and began to testify that I hadgained a witness while reading the book. I never claimed that I had received adirect answer to prayer; however, I strongly felt that I knew it was true.

During my mission I frequently heardother missionaries talk about how the Spirit guided or prompted them in theirwork. Many described how he guided them to particular streets or houses andanswered other prayers. This served to reinforce my feeling of inadequacy. Ihad pleaded for a witness of the truth of the Book of Mormon unsuccessfully forthree months, yet others could virtually call upon the Spirit like he was anold friend. I had never been more righteous in my life and I was working veryhard to obey all the mission rules and to work hard. Some of the missionariesclaiming divine guidance were not particularly obedient. I often felt that Iwas simply not good enough to deserve the companionship of the Spirit thatothers had. Occasionally I thought that it was because I wasn’t born in theChurch. It was widely believed in the Church that those who were valiant in thepre-mortal life accepted the Church in this life. I naturally concluded thatthose born in Mormon families must have been even more valiant in thepre-existence.

On the whole, my missionary years werethe most challenging and yet some of the most rewarding of my life. I enjoyedmy mission, however, I felt very strongly that when I got home I wasn’t goingto pine for the mission field like many returned missionaries did. I wanted toget on with my life. Within 3 months of my return I was engaged to Jane and thenext thing we knew our engagement was announced at stake conference. At thetime of my return from Melbourne, there was considerable pressure on the youngadults to get married although I believe it has become worse in recent years.Jane and I didn’t feel particularly pressured, however, we married 6 monthslater. We were married first in Sydney and then in the New Zealand Temple. Oneyear later we became parents with the birth of our first daughter Jessica. Ourcivil marriage was never registered (slack ward clerk I guess) and we actuallylived in sin for the first 15 years of our marriage. Australian law did notrecognize temple marriages in those days.

A week after returning home from mymission I re-enrolled at university. At first I could not remember anythingfrom the subjects I took before my mission, but within a few weeks things startedto come filtering back. In fact my two years of intense scripture study andmemorization soon began to pay dividends. I discovered for the first time in mylife that I could concentrate for long periods during study. I began to feelthat with effort I might even be able to achieve an honors grade at graduation.Two years later I graduated with first class honors and immediately commencedstudying towards my doctorate. I am certain that my missionary training savedme two years of research study, normally required before admission to adoctorate degree, because it led to such an improvement in my results.

My uncertainty with recognizing theSpirit resurfaced during my first year back from my mission. Australia beatAmerica in the America’s Cup yacht race. To most Americans this was a non-eventbut for many Australians it was a huge thrill. Australia came from 3-1 down inthe series to snatch a 4-3 victory. I felt intenselywarm feelings in my heart, as though it was going to burst. I had felt similarfeelings when I was teaching discussions as a missionary. I could notunderstand why the strong emotional feelings I felt with such an event wereindistinguishable from what I had learned to interpret as the feelings of theSpirit. They were similar to the feelings I felt as I watched The Sound ofMusic, or Fiddler on the Roof or Les Miserables. Even today as I watch TheSound of Music for the 30th time it will still reduce me to tears. Other peoplefelt these same feelings and many obviously felt them about their Church. Inever resolved this issue, that non-members also felt the Spirit and that italso made them feel their Church was right.

Soon after I was married I was called tothe position of young men president. For most of my adult years in the Church Iserved in the young men or in a bishopric where I was responsible for theyouth. I found working with the young men to be challenging and fulfillingbecause I felt you could make a difference. I enjoyed the company of the youthmore than the elders quorum or high priests group. It was a calling where youhad to rely on your own belief in the Church as the youth were frequentlyquestioning everything. The boys rarely had their own testimony and some didn’twant to be there. In my last year in our small ward I was a counselor in thebishopric, leading the young men, teaching early morning seminary at 6.30amfive days a week and struggling to finish my PhD. I was a little relieved atthe end of 1989 to be offered an overseas research scholarship. Early the nextyear my wife and I and our three children set off for the John Innes Institutein Norwich, England.

During my PhD study I became fascinatedwith the power of molecular genetics to answer biological questions. I took theopportunity to learn many of the fundamentals of DNA technology in thestimulating and challenging environment of the John Innes Institute. In recentyears this institute has grown to become a world-leading centre for plantscience research. I was immediately called to serve with the youth in the localward and within a few months I was called to be the young men president. Thiswas the most enjoyable calling I ever had. The ward was large and we had about20 boys attending. They were some of the nicest boys I have known and I reallyfelt that I did the best that I could to lead them. It was very difficult tosay goodbye to them when we returned to Australia in early 1992 when I took upa research position in Canberra.

About a month after my return I wascalled as the young men president of the Canberra district. I was happy toaccept the calling but I was concerned at the high turnover of youth leaders inprevious years. During the interview I received an assurance that I would begiven sufficient time in the calling to generate stability in the youthprogram. Canberra had a history of shuffling men through callings because of achronic shortage of leadership. If a senior leader moved away, it was commonfor a chain reaction of leadership changes to take place. One year later and aweek before our annual youth conference I was released and called as acounselor in my local branch presidency. I was terribly disappointed. I learnedsoon afterwards the reason for my release. The district president had calledsomeone from my branch to a district position. My branch president insistedthat I be returned to the branch in order to square things up. The districtpresident told me he wanted me to stay with the young men, but he feltcompelled to let me return to my branch. Up until this time I had feltconfident that most of my callings were inspired, but I struggled with thisrelease. I had great difficult believing that this was inspiration from aboverather than desperation from below.

The LDS Church has struggled in Canberrafor decades and most of the leadership, including the current stake presidencyhas a pretty good idea why. The Canberra membership has been divided into 5small branches for as long as I can remember. The struggle to provideleadership in these small units is exacerbated by the fact that Canberra’spopulation is highly transient. Numerous requests to area leaders and missionpresidents that the units be combined have repeatedly been rejected. ManyCanberra members believe that area leaders want as many branches as possible inCanberra so that on paper the church appears larger than it really is in thenational capital. The real casualties of this policy were the youth, who weredenied the opportunities for more friends and support and the continualstruggling of the branches resulting in burned out and depressed members. Iwondered at times why they called local people to leadership positions inCanberra if they didn’t trust their judgment on the tough decisions.

Soon after my release I attended asenior leadership testimony meeting where I witnessed almost every man testifythat the only thing that kept him coming to church was his testimony. For mostof these men, church membership was not a huge positive in their lives. I leftthat meeting feeling very disillusioned, because I was beginning to feel thesame way myself. Since the church was a big part of our family life we decidedto leave Canberra. In spite of the fact that I enjoyed my job I accepted aresearch position in Brisbane. After two years in Canberra we moved to Brisbanewhere we happily settled into a large ward. When we arrived I asked the bishop,Terry Brown, to give me a breather while I regrouped after my experiences inCanberra. Terry had been through a similar experience himself and respected mywishes for a couple of months, after which I was called to be one of hiscounselors. Terry is one of the nicest, most genuine men I have know and I willalways love and respect him. I particularly enjoyed serving with him because hereminded me of my father. Towards the end of the second year it became obviousthat the ward was growing too large for the bishop and the building. The wardwas split in late 1996 and I was called as the bishop of one of the wards. [Terry Brown and his wife Brenda resigned fromthe church in 2007.]

I remember feeling a strong sense ofhelplessness about being called as a bishop. I felt that my life was almost outof my control and that someone else was calling the shots. I felt extremelyinadequate because Terry had been such a wonderful bishop, but he was verysupportive of my call. I had served in several bishoprics, but I knew being thebishop was a completely different challenge. I had an inkling of the tremendousstrain that this call would place on my family but by the end of my first weekas bishop I had had a full taste of it. Some inactive members repeatedlyharassed me for financial assistance. It was clear that they had beenextracting considerable financial assistance from other bishops under falsepretences. A new bishop was an easy target so they tried everything on me. Whenthey failed to obtain any money they left the ward in search of anotherunsuspecting bishop.

At the end of January 1998 I took timeoff work and spent two months studying for an exam to enter a graduate medicinedegree at the University of Queensland. The first subject I studied wasbiology. I find biology fascinating and after this period of study I felt I hadgained a much broader appreciation of the subject than at any other time in mylife.

SCIENCE AND MORMON DOCTRINE

Soon after completing my study I read anarticle on the Flood and the Tower of Babel in the January 1998 issue of theEnsign magazine. According to this article faithful Latter-day Saints believein a universal flood that killed all animals and presumably most plants,besides those on the ark. Those who believed anything less were lumped in withthe unbelievers. It was claimed that these unbelievers were persuaded in theirbelief by the way that they interpreted geological evidence. There could nothave been another time in my life when I would have reacted more strongly. Ihad come to accept that Noah was a real man, but that the Flood was a localizedevent. I strongly suspected that other LDS scientists thought the same way. Ifthere was a major extinction in the last 5 to 10 thousand years then thebiological and geological evidence has been removed. I didn’t know anyscientists who considered that there was evidence of a universal flood. Iaccepted that God had power to do many things, but covering, creating ordistorting evidence to test His children was not a characteristic of the God I worshipped.I was deeply disappointed at this article. As a bishop I was sacrificing alarge amount of my time serving in my ward, at the expense of my family. Ithurt deeply to be lumped in with the unbelievers by an ignorant BYU scholar onthe Church payroll. [I have since learned that Donald Parry was heavilycriticised by other BYU scholars for publishing this article]

While I was greatly troubled by thisarticle, my testimony was unaffected. I had known for some time that thingsthat are written in the Ensign are not necessarily doctrine. I had over theyears, however, grown tired of the fact that modern biology was frequently aneasy target for ignorant attack by uninformed Church leaders. About the onlybook in my limited LDS library that mentioned the Flood was Mormon Doctrine byBruce R. McConkie. This was a relic from the black and white days of Mormonismfrom my youth. I was already acquainted with McConkie’s ignorant position onevolution so I was not interested in what he had to say about the Flood. Likemany Mormon scientists I saw no conflict between my religious faith and anacceptance of the principle of evolution. Evolution is simply one of thefirmest facts ever to be validated by science. Despite this, it is surroundedwith controversy and widely condemned by large numbers of people who generallyhaven’t taken the time to carefully examine the evidence. In my experience inthe Mormon Church, public criticism of evolution was acceptable while vocalsupport was frowned upon.

I felt a need to talk to other membersabout my concerns but when I made an attempt a member in my ward, who overhearda private conversation, reported me to the stake president! From that point onI became very reluctant to talk to members about things that troubled me. I soonfelt quite alone in my thoughts at church. I could only discuss things with mywife, my friends at work and some of my family. I concluded that the Internetwas the quickest and most readily available avenue for me to find out whatother Latter-day Saints thought about the Flood. However, while I foundmaterial written by Mormons on evolution, Book of Mormon archaeology and manyother subjects, after two weeks I had made no progress. Without doubt thearticle that had the most impact on me was a statement published by theSmithsonian Institute inWashington D.C. concerning the Book of Mormon. In very strong language thisstatement spoke of a complete lack of evidence for any connection between theOld World and the New World. The strength of this statement jolted me.Scientists rarely make such dogmatic statements unless they have plenty ofevidence (or none in this case) to back them up. I had been told in seminarythat the Smithsonian had been known to use the Book of Mormon in theirresearch. The statement utterly refuted this claim. In fact the Smithsonian hasgrown tired of responding to Mormons who regularly contact them to see how theBook of Mormon is helping them out. I believed the Book of Mormon was true andthat Hebrew civilizations had occurred on the American continent. I firmlybelieved that there was a connection between the Old and the New World,however, I had never taken the time to seriously examine this. I was confidentthat somewhere in the scientific literature there must be some reliableresearch that supported this. There is an abundance of Mormon literature thatclaims strong links between the two worlds. With this in mind I decided to lookfor myself for research that supported Old World migrations to the Americas.

I began searching for research papershaving some connection with American Indians or Polynesians. Because I wasfamiliar with plant genetics I became interested in recent research on the DNAof American Indians. The principles of DNA analysis are applicable to allliving things so it was relatively easy to jump from the plant to the animalkingdom. I rapidly accumulated many scientific papers comparing themitochondrial DNA of American Indians from numerous tribes with themitochondrial DNA of other populations around the world. Mitochondrial DNA is passed from mother to child eachgeneration. It is essentially a female genealogical lineage, or a maiden nameif you like, stored in the mitochondrial DNA sequence. This part of the totalDNA genome is used for population studies in many animal species. It is verysimple to study because the mitochondrial genes don’t get rearranged eachgeneration like most genes, which are inherited as a mixed bag from previousgenerations. I was equally interested in more recent Y-chromosome DNA studies.Male lineages, much like DNA surnames, are passed from father to son andclearly reveal male genealogical lineages.

In the last decade scientists fromseveral research groups had tested the mitochondrial DNA of over 2000 AmericanIndians from about a hundred tribes scattered over the length of the Americas.It soon became apparent to me that about 99% of their female lineages werebrought into the Americas in excess of 12,000 years ago. Almost all of theselineages are most closely related to those of people in Asia, particularly insouthern Siberia near Mongolia. Several tribes in Mesoamerica (which includedAztecs and Mayans) had been tested and all but a couple of individuals out ofabout 500 had mitochondrial DNA of Asian origin. The small fraction of NativeAmerican lineages that were not from Asia appeared to originate in WesternEuropean countries such as Spain. DNA studies also showed that the femaleancestors of the Polynesians came from South East Asia and not the Americas.Y-chromosome studies, which trace male migrations, strongly support themitochondrial work, except that the European influence is higher (about 10% inthe Americas).

For two weeks I wrestled with theresearch. I collected more and more research papers but failed to find anythingthat supported migration of Jewish people before Columbus. Enough is knownabout the DNA lineages of Jews to be very confident that they are clearlydistinguishable from Asian lineages. They would also be easily identifiable ifthey were present in the Americas in significant numbers. I struggled with thecomplete discrepancy between the research and my understanding of the Book ofMormon and the doctrine of the Lamanites. The Book of Mormon describes theoccurrence of Hebrew civilizations in the Americas numbering in the millions.It is clear that the victorious Lamanites would have numbered in the millionsin about 400 AD. I could not understand how such large numbers of people couldhave escaped detection.

Until this point in my life myintellectual study of the Book of Mormon was minimal. I had read it severaltimes from cover to cover and knew the first few chapters of I Nephi very well.I had only taken a passing interest in New World prehistory. Perhaps this wasbecause I am an Australian and have lived in Australia all my life. I suspectthat few Americans have an interest in Australian prehistory. Perhaps it wasbecause I was so busy in the Church that I just didn’t have the time. Forwhatever reason I had happily assumed that BYU scholars were uncoveringevidence supporting the Book of Mormon. I began to closely examine the text ofthe Book of Mormon. The Introduction to the book states that the principleancestors of the American Indians are theLamanites. The original founders of both major Book of Mormon civilizationsfled to a Promised Land kept from the knowledge of other nations. Historicalaccounts of these civilizations only mention the presence of people in the NewWorld whose Hebrew origin is accounted for in the text. People who migratedaway from these civilizations appeared to be entering further unoccupiedterritories. There is not a single mention of non-Israelite people in theentire history. According to the Book of Mormon there was clear reason toconsider it Mormon doctrine that the American Indians are predominantly theoffspring of Hebrew ancestors. The Lamanites with their dark skin curse andloincloths appeared as stereotypical American Indians. This strong scripturalfoundation is apparently the reason that most Latter-day prophets and seniorleaders consider this to be the case today. Arguably the most frequentlyrepeated message in the Book of Mormon is that the seed of the Lamanites wouldreceive the Gospel in the Latter days from the gentiles. This is furthersupported in the Doctrine and Covenants where God himself refers to any Indiansat the frontiers as Lamanites. How could God allow the book to give theoverwhelming impression that the descendants of Lehi were numerous, when theyare now virtually undetectable?

I desperately tried to find holes in theresearch but after a couple of weeks I realized this was fruitless. I was notupset by it and strangely my belief remained intact. I was on a detachedjourney of discovery in a field of science that was new to me. The gravity ofthe situation completely escaped me at first; however, gradually I became awareof the contradiction that I was faced with and I became more concerned. Before putting our children to bed on the 2ndAugust 1998 we sang Book of MormonStories with our children. I became quite upset as we sang the song becauseI knew that I didn’t believe the song’s message anymore; a feeling exacerbatedby its stereotypical tom-tom beat. I resolved to never sing that song againwith our children. When I woke up on the following morning I felt I had solveda puzzle I had been battling with for as long as I could remember. During thenight my subconscious must have found the space to sort things out. All theproblems I had been struggling with evaporated when I reached one simpleconclusion. As much as I wanted the Book of Mormon to be true, I suddenly knewthat it wasn’t. It might be full of some remarkable stories and scripturalwritings, but it wasn’t history about real people.

My belief in the Book of Mormon was thefoundation for my belief in Mormonism. When it was shattered it brought a lotdown with it. I immediately knew that I must be released from my calling. Irang my stake president that day and arranged to have an interview the nextnight. I told one of my counselors and my close friend Kevin Thomson, who wasserving in the bishopric of the other ward meeting in our chapel, that I wasgoing to be released. Both were in a good position to defend my reputation inthe face of the rumors that would certainly start. Few bishops are releasedbefore serving two years and knowing some members in my ward, the gossip wascertain to travel quickly.

Soon after I came to the realizationthat the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be, I became deeply upset. Ihad firmly believed that it was true. I had not been looking for evidence toprove it wrong. I had been looking for research that could be viewed assupportive. It was a shock to have my belief shattered so quickly. For aboutthree days the thought of all this reduced me to tears, at almost any hour ofthe day. I went for days’ wondering if anything at all that I believed wastrue. As a Mormon I believed that all other Churches were false. I was in nohurry to rush out and join another Church.

I was released within two weeks ofspeaking to my stake president. I spoke at my release and asked the members notto gossip among themselves about why I was released. I told them that all theyneeded to know was that it was the right thing to happen. For some reason, atthe time I felt strongly that the senior leaders of the church needed to knowabout the science so that they could be prepared for what lay ahead. I wasstrangely protective of the Church. My stake president and his counselors werevery compassionate and never judgmental. They suggested that I speak to thearea leaders in Sydney. I soon discovered that other members and leaders wereless considerate. Several clearly assumed I had sinned and one man in my wardtook it upon himself to call me to repentance.

ENcountering instituitional MORMONISM

Several weeks after my release I wassurprised to receive, out of the blue, a very thoughtless and judgmental letterfrom a member of the area presidency. He launched into his letter by quoting ascripture in 2nd Nephi 9: 28-29, which was probably conceived by Joseph Smithto put the fear of God into someone questioning his authority.

"O, that cunningplan of the evil one! O the vainness, and frailties, and foolishness of men!When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto thecounsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves,wherefore their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shallperish. “But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels ofGod."

The rest of the three-page lettercontained a collection of statements that were purely intended to fill me withfear and guilt. I was warned that I would damage my family’s reputation andhurt my mother, family, wife, children and future generations. I was warnedthat I would become a hollow shell of a man without the Church. It was clearthat the area leaders had not even spoken to my stake president and had writtenthe letter on the basis of idle rumors. I had asked to be released because Iwas honestly concerned and it was the correct thing to do. I could not simplypretend that I was not troubled. At the time I was still shocked and confusedand had not decided that I was going to leave the Church. Even my stakepresident and the new bishop were disappointed when they saw the content of theletter. I firmly, yet politely, responded to this letter and received a lettershortly afterwards apologizing for acting on hearsay.

The area leaders initially questionedthe validity of the science and assumed that my interpretation was incorrect.They were of the view that the American Indians were Lamanites and if thescience doesn’t agree with that conclusion then the science is wrong. Theysuggested I speak to Scott Woodward, a BYU professor who was an expert in thisfield. I was irritated by the fact that they trusted Mormon scientists at BYU abovenon-Mormon scientists, but I guess I had grown accustomed to this prejudice inthe Church. I corresponded with Dr Woodward on about four occasions until Ibecame even more convinced of the seriousness of the situation. He was very sincereand he was very honest with me. In the midst of his lengthy defences of theChurch he acknowledged that greater than 98% of American Indians came from Asiaand that this conflicts with current thinking in the church regarding the whereaboutsof the Lamanites today. He confirmed that scientists at BYU had tested over 6000American Indians from Peru and they came up with the same problem of virtuallyall the female DNA lineages coming from Asia. Now I knew that all three majorcivilisations in the Americas the Aztecs, Maya and Incas were comprised ofpeople who trace their genealogy back to Siberia. Data from Peru had beenconspicuously lacking in my research.

My communication with the areapresidency stalled when they became aware that my correspondence with BYU hadconfirmed my interpretation. It was evident that they were seeking advice frommore senior leaders and that these leaders were hastily speaking to scientistsat BYU. The explanations that eventually came back to me were that the termLamanite was a cultural or political term and that we don’t know preciselywhere they currently live. Scott Woodward acknowledged that he had struggledfor a number of years with the research, but had managed to settle most of hisconcerns. He had come to the conclusion that it wasn’t doctrine that theAmerican Indians were Lamanites. I was dumbfounded. There are thousands ofPolynesian members of the church in Australia and most believed that they arethe offspring of Lehi. Many of them had patriarchal blessings assuring them ofthis. If this doctrine could be so easily dismantled then no doctrine in theChurch was safe. I have since come to the conclusion that LDS leaders haverealized that it is much harder to change the truth than to change doctrine. Sothey simply change the doctrine. I used to think that doctrine was the truthand that the truth is the same yesterday, today and forever.

I began to read some of the materialpublished by people at BYU and the Foundation for Ancient Research and MormonStudies (FARMS). The most widely accepted theory at BYU was that thedescendants of Lehi lived in Mesoamerica. I closely examined the claims ofarchaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon. It was obvious that none of itcan be considered evidence. At a stretch it could be used to make it appearthat the occurrence of Hebrews in ancient America was plausible if you reallywanted that to be true. Many exaggerated claims of the past have steadilyevaporated under the weight of objective research. Major weaknesses have nowbeen found in the widely touted evidences for the Book of Mormon such asQuetzalcoatl, stele 5 (Lehi’s tree of life) and others. The truth is that thereis no reliable scientific evidence supporting migrations from the Middle Eastto the New World, just as the Smithsonian statement had said. Some Mormonscholars and indeed Apostles are aware of this and quietly acknowledge it inacademic circles behind closed doors. This is never revealed to the Church atlarge presumably because it isn’t faith promoting.

Alternative theories of how Lehi’sdescendants established their civilizations in the Americas are now beingcontrived. Soon the most popular theory will be that after the arrival ofLehi’s family in the New World, his descendants recruited a large peasantpopulation that formed the base of their civilizations. These poor people wouldhave been none other than the Native Americans. Some derive support for thisidea from the writings of John Sorenson, a senior FARMS scholar. He claims to havefound numerous references in the Book of Mormon to “other” people being therewhen Lehi arrived and later during the Book of Mormon period. Apparently thosewho miss these evidences are lazy readers with only superficial interest ingetting to the deep truths in the book.

Some at BYU thought that the now obviouslink to Asia could be explained by the Jaredite migrations. Hugh Nibleyspeculated that the Jaredites had migrated 8,000 kms across Asia and thensailed to America from China. This was a new theory to me and I was astonishedat the book by Hugh Nibley that expounds it. I was amazed at the way educatedLatter-day Saints at BYU accommodated the contradictions between science andthe Book of Mormon. Some simply avoid these difficulties with a dismissiveciting of the work of Nibley or Sorenson. “Oh that problem was solved yearsago!” At best Nibley’s work was a feeble attempt at solving the Asian problem,but it did nothing to solve the absence of a link to Israel, which was sostarkly revealed by the DNA evidence. Native Americans clearly migrated fromAsia, but it was at least 12,000 years ago and it was almost certainly on foot.The archaeological and anthropological evidence for this is considerable and itis universally accepted by non-Mormon scientists. It should be remembered thatthese scientists are as diligent and truthful as anyone else. This conclusionis the result of capable people trying to honestly explain the evidence to thebest of their ability. For several decades Mormon scholars have disputed theseconclusions, however, the evolving theories about the current location of theLamanites have been heavily influenced by mainstream theories of New Worldcolonization.

I was amazed at the lengths that FARMSwent too in order to prop up faith in the Book of Mormon. I felt that the onlyway I could be satisfied with FARMS explanations was to stop thinking. On theother hand I was also surprised at how readily the declarations of theprophets, including Joseph Smith, could be overlooked in order to salvage thewreck. Some argue that Joseph Smith was never clear about where the Lamaniteswere located. I doubt he felt it necessary to be specific because it was commonknowledge among Mormons that all American Indians were Lamanites. It is veryclear in the Doctrine and Covenants that the God speaking to Joseph Smiththought the Indians in Missouri were Lamanites. The explanations of the FARMSresearchers stretched the bounds of credibility to breaking point on almostevery critical issue. I could not force myself to accept their conclusions nomatter how hard I wanted it to be true. I continuously found myself thinkingthat there is a simple explanation for all this.

I could not believe that Lehi and hisfamily conquered thousands of Native Americans soon after their arrival inAmerica and that they became adopted as Lamanites. I also could not accept thatthe title Lamanite was essentially political. Its only political use was todistinguish divisions among the Lehites and Mulekites. Many prophecies aboutthe Lamanites also refer to their seed in the latter days, clearly implying agenealogical link. I couldn’t believe that a people could be so worthless inthe sight of God and the Nephite prophets that they were simply not mentionedin the Book of Mormon. I was troubled by the statements made by Joseph Smithand all the prophets about where the Lamanites currently live. Millions ofmembers of the Church have been mislead into believing that the Lamanites areall over America and Polynesia. I am certain that thousands of Native Americansand Polynesians have been attracted to the Church in the belief that the Bookof Mormon contains an account of their ancestors.

ABANDONING THE OLD SHIPMORMONISM

After communicating with scientists atBYU and reading numerous FARMS publications I wrote to the area presidency detailing what Ihad learned and I asked for their advice. Should I accept the FARMS theories limiting Lehi’s impact to a smallcolonization and at the same time reject the words of the prophets or should Ireject all the science and go back to what the Book of Mormon and prophets havesaid? In their letter of response they avoided answering myquestion. Their advice was that from time to time things will come along thatseem to discredit the church but that I should “Stick with the old ship, itwill pull you through”. I was also instructed that I didn’t need to explain toother members what my difficulties were. The final humiliation was theinclusion in the letter of dialogue I could memorize and quote, like a mindlesszombie, to members who inquired about my troubles. I should respond by saying...

"We are all triedin different ways in the Church; and through those trials comes eitherincreased faith and greater commitment, or a lost faith. I am committed tospending as much time as I need with the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine andCovenants and the Pearl of Great Price to get my previous witness back again asit was before.”

In other words, stop thinking, hope itwill all go away and pretend that something was currently wrong with me. Thethought of quoting this pathetic response to members inquiring about my currentsituation made me ill.

I soon learned what they meant by thingsthat seem to discredit the church or what they also referred to as the“interesting Church issues list”. I became aware for the first time in my lifeabout many other issues surrounding the origin of the Church. I wasparticularly troubled to learn more about the Book of Abraham, another Latter-daySaint scripture originating with Joseph Smith. Joseph claimed that it was adirect translation from some papyri written by the hand of Abraham. I learnedthat the papyri were thought to have been destroyed in a fire in Chicago;however, they were discovered in a museum in New York in 1966 and returned tothe Church the following year. They are unmistakably the ones used by JosephSmith as they contained facsimile 1, which is printed in the current Book ofAbraham. In addition the church had a copy of Joseph’s Egyptian alphabet andgrammar. This document written by Joseph Smith contains a column ofhieroglyphics copied from the papyrus next to a column of definitions. All ofthe symbols in the alphabet were found on a small portion of the recovered papyri.Pictures of the papyri were published in the New Era and Egyptologists,including several Latter-day Saints, translated the text. They were found to becommon funeral texts that were traditionally placed with mummies at burial andthey dated to about 100 AD. This event occurred just before I was baptized intothe Church. Thirty years later I had never heard anything about it.

I read the apologies offered by Mormonscholars, the most predictable being that they haven’t found the correctpapyrus. Other FARMS scholars hunt for references to Abraham in other papyri asthough this supports the Book of Abraham. I found that the same mentalacrobatics required to accept the Book of Mormon defences were necessary tosalvage the Book of Abraham. I read several of Hugh Nibley’s comments after thepapyri were found and he was clearly stumped. I was astonished to read astatement by him a decade later claiming that no one had laid a glove on theBook of Abraham. It wasn’t faith that was required to accept the apologist’sconclusions; rather, it was a pigheaded, dogmatic insistence that Mormonism wasright. The Book of Abraham has been completely and utterly exposed as a pieceof fiction originating in the mind of Joseph Smith.

There were large volumes of other “interestingChurch issues” that I discovered. With my eyes now open the difficulties withthe Book of Mormon seem endless. They range from a complete absence of all theOld World crops and animals mentioned in the text through to the absence ofmetallurgy, horse drawn wheeled vehicles and any Hebraic or Egyptian-likewritings in pre-Columbus America. With the origin of the Book of Abrahamexposed, and my faith in the Book of Mormon so recently shattered, I have nofaith in anything that the Mormon Church claims. At almost every turn, factsare distorted and truth concealed in order to maintain the faith of mostinquiring Latter-day Saints. In order for me to remain with Mormonism mystruggles with the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham would have completelydrained me. I would have indeed become the hollow shell of a man the arealeaders forecast I would become.

Soon after these events we moved from Brisbaneback to Canberra. I have lost contact with essentially all of my friends in theChurch. My friend Kevin Thomson asked to be released from the bishopric andthen left the church with his wife and three children. The DNA evidence wasonly the catalyst. They left when they became aware of the difficultiessurrounding the Book of Abraham and the recurrent sanitizing of Church history.They found most of the troubling information in Church publications. It issurprising what you see when your eyes are open. Kevin had struggled early inhis mission with so many missionaries claiming to feel the Spirit guide theirevery move. At the time he had also felt very inadequate and unworthy, afeeling we both had shared. Few former LDS friends of theirs speak to them nowthat they have left, including their bishop who was a good friend of both ofus. They are very happy and treasure the time they now have together as afamily.

My brother and his wife and fivechildren left at about the same time as us and are now attending anotherchurch. The DNA evidence was just another problem in a long list of issues thatseriously troubled them about the church. My brother had served in many seniorleadership positions including seven years as a bishop, as a stake young menpresident and as a member of a mission presidency. His wife had known for yearsthat the Church was not true. She had realized that many of her friends sharedjust as strong feelings about the churches that they attended. She couldn’tcontinue to feel that they were any less important in God’s eyes, or that theirfeelings were any less valid. She struggled for years to hide this from theextended family group. They were both greatly relieved when all their childrenleft with them.

I am sure that some are comforted intheir belief by the thought that scientists at BYU are not troubled. Arealeaders have probably reassured my family and other members that becausefaithful scientists at BYU know about the DNA research, all is well. They wouldnot have mentioned that since the Church owns BYU it can control what its staffsay or publish. Members who criticize the Church or its teachings at BYU aresacked and excommunicated. Scholars paying too close attention to the detailsof Church history have been severely repressed in recent years. The samecensorship of scientists has occurred before in BYU’s history and it willhappen again. In the heartland of Mormonism the consequences of this action canbe devastating for an individual, who could find themselves unemployed and anoutcast in his family and community. Many scientists have learned that the bestway to deal with these difficult issues is to not deal with them. Some keepChurch and science safely locked in separate mental compartments and neverattempt to resolve any conflicts. They reason that they have the eternities toresolve these conflicts. I must have been doing this myself to a certaindegree. It disappoints me greatly to see the Mormon Church hiding behindacademics at BYU. I wonder how many of those academics harbor real concernsabout the Church but are afraid to speak out. In most cases educationalinstitutions have helped open the eyes of the masses, but BYU is being used toprop up Mormonism as its scholars revise history and defend the books ofscripture attributable to Joseph Smith.

I didn’t leave the LDS Church andstop believing because it was easy. I desperately wanted the comfortingteachings of the Church to be true. But I realized recently that for most of mylife my family was the most powerful force motivating me to stay in the Church.Honestly telling my family of my concerns over the years was almostunthinkable. I think back to the time on my mission when I was pleading for awitness that the Book of Mormon was true. As with all young Mormons searchingfor the truth, there was a lot riding on those prayers. It was not simply amatter between me and God. There were going to be many people enormouslydisappointed in me if I didn’t get the right answer, including parents, family,friends, companions and my mission president. Most young men gain theirtestimony of the Church when they are a missionary. Not surprisingly, it israre to hear of a missionary returning from his mission early because he didn’tbelieve the Church was true. The fear of hurting the feelings of those you lovethe most is an extremely powerful motivation to not rock the boat.

Not long before we left the Church Iglanced through the latest Sunday School manual on the life of Brigham Young.If I had not known anything about Brigham Young I would have been convinced,after reading this manual, that he lived a monogamous life, marrying a secondtime after the death of his first wife. The manual borders on deception,completely omitting the fact that Brigham had more than 20 wives and fathered47 children. When I brought this to the attention of a recent convert I wasaccused of spreading lies about the Church. In an interview with my currentstake presidency, one counselor bravely expressed his disappointment at thecurrent trend in the Church to rewrite history. The trend towards sugar coatedMormonism, where only the most palatable and uplifting parts of the history isretained concerned me greatly during my last few years in the Church. Forsimilar reasons I could rarely face reading the Church News where all the newswas good news.

I have finally resolved the issue thattroubled me almost 20 years ago on my mission and which dogged me my whole lifein Mormonism. I now know that those feelings that most members are conditionedto recognize as the Spirit are not the exclusive property of the Mormon Church.All people experience strong emotions and warm feelings in their hearts, andmany people feel them about their church. I do not believe that theyexclusively tell people that the Mormon Church is the only true Church onearth. I don’t deny that many members of the Church, including myself, have hadpowerful “spiritual” experiences when they feel warm feelings in their heart.Like many Mormons, however, I had invalidated the feelings of non-members,rationalizing that they only feel portions of the Spirit because they haveportions of the truth. If that was true, then how does a person distinguishbetween a portion of the Spirit and a full dose? Why would God make so muchrest on such an impossibly hard decision? I am now convinced that He cares moreabout how genuinely good a person is than their ability to allow their feelingsto direct their lives.

The origin of the X lineage

2011-12-31T23:32:00.000-08:00

Not long after scientists first began studying the DNA lineages on Native Americans it was observed that a significant number of individuals in populations in Alaska, Canada, and northeastern North America, had female DNA lineages that are distantly related to the four main founding lineages (A, B, C & D). Originally it was thought that these new lineages might have been introduced after the arrival of Columbus, but when researchers looked closer, they found that most of them came from a fifth, though minor, founding line now known as the X lineage. It occurs at the highest frequency (about 25%) in several tribes in the northeastern part of North America (Brown et al. 1998) and at lower frequencies throughout the remainder of North America (Smith et al. 1999). About 2.5 percent of New World Native Americans have a mitochondrial DNA belonging to the X lineage family.

Several LDS scholars have claimed that the presence of the X lineage among Native Americans suggests a recent genetic link with the Middle East. Michael Quinn claimed in Sunstone Magazine that 7% of the DNA collected from indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere matched DNA collected from North Africa and the Middle East. FARMS apologist John Tvedtnes has also claimed the X lineage is evidence on a Middle Eastern connection, however FAIR and other writers for the Maxwell Institute at BYU have distanced themselves from this claim.

There are several problems associated with attempting to link the X lineage to Book of Mormon peoples. Currently the major challenge is the considerable degree of genetic variation that has been observed among New World X lineages (Brown et al. 1998). This would not be expected if the lineage family had arrived as recently as 2,600 years ago. Scientists can use the amount of variation in a DNA lineage family to estimate the time to the most recent common ancestor of that family. They are able to do this because new DNA mutations in individuals in large populations tend to occur at a relatively constant rate. By counting the number of new mutations in a lineage family scientists can estimate how long the lineage family has existed. The table below shows the age estimates for the 5 founding lineages of Native Americans.

Table 3.1

The degree of variation in the X lineage family is about the same as the other 4 lineages, strongly suggesting that the X lineage was present in the first Americans and accompanied the other four founding lineages across the ancient land bridge. The data strongly suggests that all Native American mtDNA lineages have a most recent common ancestor that lived at, or soon after, the last glacial maximum (Figure 3.1). This is also strong evidence that all five Native American mtDNA lineages arrived in the New World at the same time. The separation between New World and European X lineages is estimated to have taken place even farther back in time, over 22,000 years ago (Reidla et al. 2003).

Figure 3.1.

The confusion over the X lineage has arisen because in contrast to the other four founding lineages of Native Americans, it is an ancient and highly diverged mtDNA lineage family. It has recently been divided into two sub-groups, X1 and X2, which diverged about 30,000 years ago. Sub-group X1 is rare, and restricted to North and East Africa, and the Near East. Sub-group X2 appears to have expanded its distribution soon after the last glacial maximum (LGM) about 21,000 years ago, reaching far into Eurasia and the New World. It is more common in the Near East, the Caucasus, and Mediterranean Europe; and somewhat less common in the rest of Europe. Within each sub group there are distinct sub-clades that are found in particular populations. Subclades X2a and X2g are found in North America, but are not present in Eurasia, Mesoamerica or South America (See Table 3.2).

Table 3.2

The highest frequency of the X lineage has been found in the Israeli Druze community (27%). LDS apologist Rodney Meldrum has claimed that this is evidence that Israelites (close relatives of the Druze) may be ancestors of American Indians from eastern North America. However, the X2a lineage is not found in the Druze population.

Figure 3.2

Rodney Meldrum has recently published a book Rediscovering the Book of Mormon Remnant through DNA on the subject of haplogroup X and its potential relationships to Book of Mormon populations which can be purchased at his website. Accompanying the book are these especially bold claims:

"Not since the long-lost Joseph Smith papyri burst upon the scene in 1967 has there been news of this magnitude and import regarding the physical corroboration of Latter-day Saint doctrine and scripture." said Ed Lauritsen, Ph.D. This is the book that many have been awaiting for their further study of the genetic evidences that supports the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and the prophetic calling of the Joseph Smith.”

—The Firm Foundation

I recently questioned Rodney Meldrum’s claims that the presence of the X lineage in Native Americans represents a genetic link with Israel in light of the evidence I described above. He responded saying:

“…I have read Ugo Perego's paper in Current Biology … and understand where he is coming from, although when it comes to the dating, I am in disagreement with him based on scriptural timelines as I understand them.”

“My impression is that you believe I am 'cherry-picking' evidence I like and rejecting out of hand all other information. Simon, this is not the case. I am rejecting portions of theories that I feel cannot be reconsiled (sic) with the revealed word of the Lord in the scriptures.”

—Rodney Meldrum

In spite of his claim that he isn’t, Rodney Meldrum is most definately cherry picking the scientific evidence. He uses DNA evidence he likes (X lineage present in Old and New World) and ignores evidence he dislikes (New World X2a lineages pre-date existence of Israel by 10,000 years) because it doesn’t fit his already fixed faith-based views.

Further evidence that New World X lineages are not derived from Israel comes from studies of ancient DNA. Currently, the earliest confirmed discovery of the X lineage in pre-Columbian Native American remains comes from a 1,340-year-old burial site on the Columbia River near Vantage, Washington (Malhi and Smith 2002). There are reports of the presence of the X lineage in more ancient remains but to date these are not conclusive. However there is considerable work being done on ancient remains at present and it is only a matter of time before the X lineage will be confirmed to have been present in America before the Book of Mormon period.

References

Brown, M. D., Hosseini, S. H. and Torroni, A et al. 1998. MtDNA haplogroup X: an ancient link between Europe/Western Asia and North America? American Journal of Human Genetics 63:1852-61.

Malhi, R. S. and Smith, D. G. (2002) Brief Communication: Haplogroup X Confirmed in Prehistoric North America, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 119, 84–86.

Quinn M. (2005) The Ancient Book of Mormon as Tribal Narrative Sunstone 137:67.

Reidla, et al. (2003) "Origin and Diffusion of mtDNA Haplogroup X," American Journal of Human Genetics 73, 1178-90.

Smith, D. G., Malhi, R. S., Eshleman, J. et al. 1999. Distribution of MtDNA Haplogroup X among Native North Americans, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 110, 271-84.

Shlush, L. I. et al (2008) The Druze: A population genetic refugium of the Near East. PLoS ONE, 3 , p. e2105.

Where are the Lamanites in Mesoamerica?

2011-12-29T00:45:00.000-08:00

LDS beliefs about the historicity of the Book of Mormon were seriously challenged in 1921 when a non-Mormon scholar from Washington DC, named Mr Couch, raised several questions about the book in a letter to church leaders. Couch could not understand how the language spoken by Book of Mormon people in the fifth century AD could have so rapidly multiplied into the staggering diversity of languages observed among Native Americans one thousand years later. He was also perplexed by the mention of horses, steel, “cimeters” (Persian sabers from the 16th-18th centuries AD) and silk—all undetected in New World societies. B.H Roberts (a member of the Seventy) was charged with the responsibility of finding answers to Couch’s questions. While Roberts remained outwardly devout, he eventually conceded after several years of research that a nineteenth century origin for the Book of Mormon was quite plausible.

During the remainder of the 20^th century LDS scholars have rallied to the defense of the book. This effort has been aimed largely at reinterpreting the book to align the narrative with a modern understanding of New World colonization. This has often required novel and frequently torturous reinterpretations of the Book of Mormon narrative.

“The first rule of historical criticism in dealing with the Book of Mormon ... is, never oversimplify. For all its simple and straightforward narrative style, this history is packed as few others are with a staggering wealth of detail that completely escapes the casual reader. The whole Book of Mormon is a condensation, and a masterly one; it will take years simply to unravel the thousands of cunning inferences and implications that are wound around its most matter-of-fact statements. Only laziness and vanity lead the student to the early conviction that he has the final answers on what the Book of Mormon contains.”

—Hugh Nibley, 1952

In the six decades since Nibley made these comments, Mormon scholars have indeed found a “staggering wealth of detail” in the Book of Mormon that “completely escapes the casual reader.” The result has been a steady contraction of the claims of LDS scholars regarding the scale and geographical footprint of the Israelite presence. Most Mormon academics now believe that the events of the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica. Only in Mesoamerica are there ruins of civilizations of the magnitude evident in the Book of Mormon. In spite of this scholarship, most lay Mormons still believe the Book of Mormon events were played out across both New World hemispheres.

The Limited Geography model was championed by BYU anthropology professor John L. Sorenson, who also put forward the idea that the Olmec civilization may be equated to the Jaredites and the Pre-Classic Mayans to the Lehites. Sorenson promoted these views in his 1996 book, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. However, shrinking the geography to Mesoamerica has done little to reduce the gulf between mainstream archaeology and the views of LDS scholars. Mainstream Mesoamerican scholarship does not support the presence or influence of Old World cultures in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, nor has material evidence been found that would indicate contact between Mesoamerica and Old World cultures. If you are interested in reading more about the Limited Geography Model, there is a good wiki site that contains lots of information and links to lots more.

In Losing a Lost Tribe I presented a summary of the mtDNA lineages of Native Americans according to geographical regions (Table 2.1). This indicated that natives in Central American populations were essentially all descended from Asian ancestors. A small number of European or African DNA lineages were observed in Central America, but not at significantly higher levels than in other regions throughout the New World.

Table 2.1

In the years since the publication of Losing a Lost Tribe other research groups have published research on more Mesoamerican populations. We now have the mtDNA lineages of over a thousand Mesoamericans. These are summarized in Table 2.2 below. The mtDNA evidence suggests that Mesoamericans, like other Native Americans, are all descended from Asian ancestors. The small number of non-Asian lineages are almost certainly the result of post-Columbus admixture as they belong to lineage families that are most common in Europe or Africa.

Table 2.2

n = number of individuals

* Other includes 5 European (2H, J, T, U), 3 African ( L ) and 3 uncharacterised lineages.

References for Table 2.2

Bortolini MC et al. (1998) Diversity in protein, nuclear DNA, and mtDNA in South Amerinds - agreement or discrepancy? Ann. Hum. Gen. 62, 133-145.
González-Oliver A et al. (2001) Founding Amerindian mitochondrial DNA lineages in ancient Maya from Xcaret, Quintana Roo Am. J Phys. Anthrop 116, 230–235.
Kemp, B. M. et al. (2005) An analysis of ancient Aztec mtDNA from Tlatelolco: Pre-Columbian relations and the spread of Uto-Aztecan. Biomolecular Archaeology: Genetic Approaches to the Past, ed Reed DM (Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL), pp 22–46.
Kemp BM et al.(2010) Evaluating the farming/language dispersal hypothesis with genetic variation exhibited by populations in the Southwest and Mesoamerica. PNAS USA 107, 6759-6764.
Lorenz JG & Smith DG (1996). Distribution of four founding MtDNA haplogroups among native North Americans. Am. J Phys. Anthrop. 101, 307-23.
Merriwether DA et al. (1994) Genetic variation in the New World – ancient teeth, bone and tissue as sources of DNA. Experientia 50, 592-601.
Sandoval K et al. (2009) Linguistic and maternal genetic diversity are not correlated in Native Mexicans. Human Genetics 126, 521–531.
Schurr TG et al. (1990) Amerindian mitochondrial DNAs have rare Asian mutations at high frequencies, suggesting they are derived from 4 primary maternal lineages. Am. J Hum. Gen. 46, 613–623.
Torroni A et al. (1994a) Mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome polymorphisms in 4 Native American populations from Southern Mexico. Am. J Hum. Gen. 54, 303-18.
Torroni A et al. (1994b). Mitochondrial DNA 'Clock' for the Amerinds and its Implications for Timing Their Entry into North America. PNAS USA 91, 1158-62.
Salas A et al. (2009) Mitochondrial echoes of first settlement and genetic continuity in El Salvador. PLoS ONE 4(9): e6882. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006882

Only eleven individuals among the Mesoamericans possess a mtDNA lineage that didn’t originate in Asia. 99.6% belong to the four major lineages (A, B, C or D) which are derived from Asia. Of the eleven non-Asian lineages, three are clearly African L lineages, and three were not fully characterised. The remaining five lineages are all lineages found at high frequencies in European populations. There were two H lineages, one U, one J and one T. These lineages are found in European populations in the following frequencies: lineage H (54%), lineage U (16%), lineage J (10%) and lineage T (8%). By comparing these lineages to the thousands of mtDNA sequences in global databases, the scientists found exact matches for the U and T lineages among individuals from Western Europe, namely Spain, Portugal and Poland (Salas et al. 2009). Meanwhile, the most abundant female lineages in Middle Eastern populations are lineage K (32%) followed by lineage H (26%).

Given that African lineages were detected as well, this strongly suggests that these “other” lineages originated from post Columbus admixture with African and European colonists. Higher levels of admixture have been observed in several other Native American populations, particularly in eastern North America, which was impacted more heavily after first contact.

If, as the Book of Mormon claims, there were Israelite migrations to the New World or to Mesoamerica, they have left essentially no trace. The molecular research on Mesoamerican populations is in complete harmony with the Mesoamerican archaeological research. The lack of evidence of any Middle Eastern influence in Mesoamerica is telling given that brief visits to the New World by Vikings that took place not long after the Book of Mormon period have been detected in North America.

“Ten centuries ago a handful of Norse sailors slipped into Newfoundland, established small colonies, traded with local natives, then sailed back into the fog of history. In spite of the small scale of their settlements and the brevity of their stay, unequivocal evidence of their presence has been found, including metalwork, buildings, and Norse inscriptions. Just six centuries earlier, the Book of Mormon tells us, a climactic battle between fair-skinned Nephites and dark-skinned Lamanites ended a millennial dominion by a literate, Christian, Bronze Age civilization with a population numbering in the millions. Decades of serious and honest scholarship have failed to uncover credible evidence that these Book of Mormon civilizations ever existed. No Semitic languages, no Israelites speaking these languages, no wheeled chariots or horses to pull them, no swords or steel to make them. They remain a great civilization vanished without a trace, the people along with their genes.”

—Southerton, Losing a Lost Tribe, 2004

LDS apologetic efforts to shrink the scale of the Israelite presence must now address the disappearance of Lehi’s DNA. This is no small task given the abundance of scriptural and prophetic support for the widespread belief that most Native Americans are descended from the Lamanites. Arguing that the Lehites joined the large adjoining native populations leaves many questions to be answered including:-

Where are the seed of Lehi who are to be restored to a knowledge of "their fathers" and to receive the Gospel? The Book of Mormon was specifically written to the Lamanites.
If the Nephites and Lamanites encountered large Native American populations wherever they went why didn’t they mention them once in the 1000-year narrative?
How could the Hebrew speaking Lehites take control of well established complex Native American civilizations and this leadership change leave no trace in the archaeological record? Why would the Native Americans let them take over in the first place?
If a handful of Lehites were absorbed into large existing Native American populations, why were the terms “Lamanite” and “Nephite” still used a thousand years later?
Why, after 1000 years of history, do the Nephite prophets keep referring to the Lamanites in familial terms such as their "brethren"?

Perhaps the most important question the apologists need to answer is why people should trust them over the prophets.

Native Americans are descended from Asian ancestors

2011-12-28T06:25:00.000-08:00

The Americas were the last continents colonized by humans and the nature and timing of this colonization has been the subject of intense scientific research for over a century. The Mormon Church claims special knowledge within this field of scientific research. Most Mormons believe that native people in the Americas and Polynesia are largely (or at least partly) descended from Israelites. These views are largely based on the sacred writings Mormons possess, in particular the Book of Mormon, and numerous statements by church leaders, including all of its prophets, over many decades. As recently as December 2011 Mormons in Guatemala were assured they are descended from Lehi, an Israelite who the Book of Mormon claims sailed to the Americas in 600BC.

Virtually all scientists studying Native American populations see no cultural connection between the Old and New World. There is a consensus view among archaeologists, geologists and biologists, based on more than a century of excavating literally thousands of archaeological sites, that the New World was first populated at least thirteen thousand years ago, and as early as 25 thousand years ago, by migrants from Asia. These people entered the Americas via a wide expanse of land—called Beringia—which connects northeastern Asia with northwestern North America during ice ages when sea levels are lowered. These small groups of migrants soon exploited the richness of this “new world,” and their populations grew quickly and expanded across the North and South American continents over a few thousand years. There is widespread agreement among archaeologists that there is no evidence that the cultural developments unveiled in the archaeological record in the New World were in any way inspired by visitors or migrants from Africa, Europe, or Asia.

The Asian origin of essentially all Native Americans was firmly established by the middle of the 20th century, using classical genetic markers such as blood groups and variation in other proteins (enzymes). During the last two decades, much higher resolution molecular studies have confirmed the Asian origin of Native Americans, the timing of migrations into the Americas and the routes these people took as they entered North and South America.

Scientists carrying out molecular studies have focused on two portions of human DNA that have simple patterns of inheritance. The majority of our DNA (carried on our chromosomes) is passed from generation to generation as complex rearrangements of parental DNA. In contrast mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is passed along maternal lines from mothers to their offspring, while Y chromosome DNA (YDNA) is passed from father to son (Figure 1.1). These uni-parentally inherited DNAs have been used extensively to build maternal or paternal links between related populations and to study the movement of human populations throughout the world.

Figure 1.1

The earliest immigrants to the Americas brought with them a subset of the maternal and paternal DNA lineages present in their Asian source populations. An excellent summary of the distribution of global mtDNA and YDNA lineages can be found here.

Mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA variation in the Americas indicates unambiguously that the ancestors of Native Americans originated in Asia. Virtually all modern Native Americans possess an mtDNA lineage that belongs to one of five founding lineage families (haplogroups), which are all present among native populations of Siberia. These maternal lineages have now been designated A, B, C, D and X (Figure 1.2; Brown et al. 1998; Schurr et al. 1990). Of these haplogroups, only X is present in both central Asian and European populations; however, the X haplogroup is large and diverse, and the particular X lineage (X2a) found in Native American populations represents a distinct branch on the Eurasian X lineage tree (Reidla et al. 2003).

Figure 1.2

The four major Native American founding lineages have been renamed A2, B2, C1, and D1 to distinguish them from closely related lineages in Asia.

A small proportion of mtDNA lineages found in indigenous peoples (<1%) are derived from recent non-native (European or African) admixture (Gonzales et al. 2003; Richards et al. 1996). The majority of these mtDNAs belong to lineage H, the most common mtDNA lineage family in European populations such as Spain and the United Kingdom (Figure 1.3.). The most common mtDNA lineage among Ashkenazi Jews is lineage K (Behar et al. 2004). Lineage L is the most common lineage in African populations.

Figure 1.3

References

Behar, D. M., Hammer, M. F. Garrigan, D., et al. (2004) MtDNA evidence for a genetic bottleneck in the early history of the Ashkenazi Jewish population. European Journal of Human Genetics. 12, 355-364.

Brown, M. D., Hosseini, S. H., Torroni, A. et al. (1998) MtDNA haplogroup X: An ancient link between Europe western Asia and North America? American Journal of Human Genetics 63, 1852–1861.

Gonzales, A. M., Brehm, A., Perez, J. A., et al. (2003) Mitochondrial DNA affinities at the Atlantic fringe of Europe. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 120, 391-404.

Reidla, M., Kivisild, T. Metspalu, E. et al. (2003) Origin and diffusion of mtDNA haplogroup X. American Journal of Human Genetics 73, 1178–1190.

Richards, M., Côrte-Real, M. Forster, P. et al. (1996). "Paleolithic and Neolithic lineages in the European mitochondrial gene pool," American Journal of Human Genetics 59, 185-203.

Schurr, T. G., Ballinger, S. W. Gan, Y. Y. et al. (1990) Amerindian mitochondrial DNAs have rare Asian mutations at high frequencies, suggesting they are derived from 4 primary maternal lineages. American Journal of Human Genetics 46, 613–623.

Southerton, S. G. (2004) Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA and the Mormon Church. Salt Lake City, Signature Books.