I am going to start off by sharing the article found on the USAToday.com website. This article was written by Patty Henetz and was published on July 26, 2004.
SALT LAKE CITY — Plant geneticist Simon Southerton was a Mormon bishop in Brisbane, Australia when he woke up the morning of Aug. 3, 1998 to the shattering conclusion that his knowledge of science made it impossible for him to believe any longer in the Book of Mormon.
Two years later he started writing Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA and the Mormon Church, published by Signature Books and due in ctores next month. Along the way, he found a world of scholarship that has led him to conclude The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints belief is changing, but not through prophesy and revelation.
Rather, Southerton sees a behind-the-scenes revolution led by a small group of Brigham Young University scholars and their critics who are reinterpreting fundamental teachings of the Book of Mormon in light of DNA research findings. Along the way, he says, these apologist scholars, with the apparent blessing of church leadership, are contradicting church teachings about the origins of American Indians and Polynesians.
"You've got Mormon apologists in their own publications rejecting what prophets have been saying for decades. This becomes very troubling for ordinary members of the church," Southerton said.
And while the work of the BYU apologists — the term means those who speak or write in defense of something — remains confined largely to intellectual circles, some church members who have always understood themselves in light of Mormon teachings about the people known as Lamanites are suffering identity crises.
"It's very difficult. It is almost traumatizing," said Jose Aloayza, a Midvale attorney who likened facing this new reality to staring into a spiritual abyss.
"It's that serious, that real," said Aloayza, a Peruvian native born into the church and still a member. "I'm almost here feeling I need an apology. Our prophets should have known better. That's the feeling I get."
Southerton, now a senior researcher with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in Canberra, Australia, has concluded along with many other scientists studying mitochondrial DNA lines that American Indians and Polynesians are of Asian extraction.
For a century or so, scientists have theorized Asians migrated to the Americas across a land bridge at least 14,000 years ago. But Mormons have been taught to believe the Book of Mormon — the faith's keystone text — is a literal record of God's dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas who descended from the Israelite patriarch Lehi, who sailed to the New World around 600 B.C. The book's narrative continues through about 400 A.D.
The church teaches that Joseph Smith translated this record from gold plates found on a hillside in upstate New York in 1820, when he was 14. The Book of Mormon was first published in 1830.
In Mormon theology, Lamanites are understood as both chosen and cursed: Christ visited them, yet their unrighteousness left them cursed with dark skin. The Book of Mormon says Lamanitesdelightsome;" in 1981, the passage was changed to "pure and delightsome.") Though not mentioned specifically in the Book of Mormon, Polynesians have been taught they are a branch of the House of Israel descended from Lehi. Traditionally, Mormons have understood the Book of Mormon to cover all of the Americas in what is known as the hemispheric model. At a Bolivian temple dedication in 2000, church prophet and President Gordon B. Hinckley prayed, "We remember before Thee the sons and daughters of Father Lehi." And in 1982, the church's then-President Spencer Kimball told Samoans, Maori, Tahitians and Hawaiians that the "Lord calls you Lamanites."
Southerton's book details how these teachings have helped LDS efforts to convert new members, especially among Indians in Latin America and Maoris in New Zealand. He also offers primers on Mormon history and American race relations, quick tutorials on DNA research and syntheses of Mormon-related genetic research and DNA scholarship.
But in light of BYU scholars' recent opinion that the Book of Mormon's events could only have occurred in parts of Mexico and Guatemala — that is, Mesoamerica — the final third of the book is dedicated to examining the work of LDS scholars at the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, or FARMS, established 25 years ago and housed at BYU. FARMS findings on Mesoamerica are based on the Book of Mormon's "internal geography," that is, descriptions of how long it took the ancient peoples to get from one place to another. The apologists now believe the events occurred only hundreds of miles from each other, not thousands — provoking new questions including how the Americas could have been so rapidly populated with people speaking so many languages without the presence of vast numbers of people who never appear in the narrative.
In a telephone interview from his Canberra office, Southerton said that keeping up with the rapidly growing body of work in genetic research made it difficult for him to finish the book while also keeping it up-to-date with critics and apologists and those in between all seeking to reframe the Book of Mormon in light of DNA research.
In particular, he's tried to keep up with FARMS qrticles, which he said are "completely at loggerheads with what the church leaders are teaching."
Church spokesman Dale Bills on Thursday said the church teaches only that the events recorded in the Book of Mormon took place somewhere in the Americas. The doctrine of the church is established by scripture and by the senior leadership of the Church, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.
"Faithful Latter-day Saint scholars may provide insight, understanding and perspective but they do not speak for the church," he said. On its Web site, under the "Mistakes in the News" heading, the church declares, "Recent attacks on the veracity of the Book of Mormon based on DNA evidence are ill considered. Nothing in the Book of Mormon precludes migration into the Americas by peoples of Asiatic origin. The scientific issues relating to DNA, however, are numerous and complex."
The site then offers Web links to five articles, four of which were published last year in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, a FARMS publication.
Aloayza believes that is tacit approval of what FARMS is saying.
"There is such a huge divide between what the scholarly elite with the LDS church knows and will discuss and what the ordinary member knows," Aloayza said. "The burden of proof is on the people who are advancing the Book of Mormon as the word of God."
BYU political science professor and FARMS director Noel Reynolds said FARMS reseabch and writings are not aimed at proving or disproving the Book of Mormon. "We understand the difficulties of that. We get dragged into these discussions repeatedly because of books like Southerton's or ordinary anti-Mormon questions," he said.
The work of FARMS shouldn't be considered counter to church doctrine because the geography of the Book of Mormon has "never been a matter of official church pronouncement," Reynolds said.
While believing in a hemispheric model might be considered "naive," he said, "it's also fair to say that the majority of LDS over a period of time have accepted a hemispheric view, including church leaders."
Added FARMS founder and BYU law professor John Welch, "We don't speak officially for the church in any way. These are our opinions, and we hope they're helpful."
Southerton, who no longer is a member of the church, said given the state of DNA research and increasing lay awareness of it, church leaders ought just to own up to the problems that continued literal teachings about the Book of Mormon present for American Indians and Polynesians.
"They should come out and say, 'There's no evidence to support your Israelite ancestry,' " Southerton said. "I don't have any problem with anyone believing what's in the Book of Mormon. Just don't make it look like science is backing it all up."
I have been searching the online archives for almost a year now, and this is the first time I have come across this article. I find it fascinating because this one issue, DNA, caused this man to realize the game the church is playing. I am glad that he stood his ground and decided that the Book of Mormon isn't what the Church claims it to be.
The Mormon Church isn't going to be able to play this game for long. Sooner or later they will have to realize that science is showing the accuracy of the Book of Mormon... and they will have to act quickly in order to keep people in the church. They have already done this by changing one single word (as quietly as possible) in the introduction of the Book of Mormon. When the church is questioned on this, they immediately jump up and say, "The introduction isn't scripture!" Wrong. They changed the entire meaning by adding the word "among."
I really hope that people start looking into these issues on their own, and are not as afraid to speak up as I once was as a teenager.
The problems and the doctrines not making sense are becoming more and more obvious thanks to the internet. I truly believe the church will have a decline in members in the future due to these science findings.
The general membership of the church is going to start asking questions, and the church isn't going to have the answers.
May 30, 2008 at 1:24 AM
I thought you would enjoy this followup story.
http://www.signaturebooks.com/reviews/Southerton.pdf
May 30, 2008 at 4:12 PM
I think I spent a really long post discussing DNA a whilst back. Its quite a little more complex than what Southerton suggests and not as clear cut. The 'Original' Study concluded that the American Indian's etc came from other areas other than Jewish heritage. But as we knew back then, Lehi was of the tribe of Manasseh, who we have NO DNA link back to. For all we know, there maybe traces of Manasseh within the Asian races....there is just no way of actually knowing at this stage...
Conclude what you like from 'other' people's study. Its not as clear cut as Scientists like to make out sometimes. I'd like you to read 'Science in Action' by Bruno Latour sometime in order to understand just how Science comes to conclusions about anything...its quite enlightening not just about the whole Science v the Church thing, but about Scientific conclusions in general (which are flaunted too much in the news in my opinion)
May 30, 2008 at 5:28 PM
Hey Nicko!
I am going to have to agree to disagree with you here. Joesph Smith made plenty of claims, and most of them have been either proven false or the church has quietly distanced themselves from it. Why else would they change the introduction to the Book of Mormon the way they did? If they were right, why would they change it?
May 31, 2008 at 11:49 PM
Hmm Sydney you've not dealt with my post the way I intended it. Instead you've just believed what some 'anti' Mormon literature has told you about the changes to the BoM. Perhaps you should look up that in the FAIR LDS link you have on the side of your blog.
My point was that DNA research and the conclusions people have made are full of various different factors that are not made clear to the 'lay' reader. This is the manner in which Science tends to operate in the public.
I think essentially Sydney your Scientific evidence theorum cuts to the core of all Religion. How can we prove that there is in fact a God? How can we prove that there is in fact sacred religious texts not just written by Man's own intellect? You can't. The only way you can is to have supernatural beings declare it to the world which we know isn't going to happen. But one day perhaps...
May 31, 2008 at 11:50 PM
I guess Syd that is where Faith jumps into it all...the missing component for all Religions...not just Mormonism...to jump from Science to Sacred.
June 1, 2008 at 6:59 PM
Science is important to me Nicko. Science proves things. You can see who fathered a child with 99.999% accuracy... some of these scientific tests were not even a glimpse in young Joseph's mind when this whole thing came to be.
I know you disagree with me there, but he just didn't see the DNA thing coming. He never thought people would be able to prove or disprove this kind of thing. I honestly believe that.
Another thing about the word Sacred... Why is it important that Mormons keep "sacred" things "secret"? I mean, other religions find things sacred... but they talk about them. Why the need for the secrecy? What is your take on that?
June 1, 2008 at 7:10 PM
Nicko,
You will have to forgive me. My replies to your comments are out of order. Sorry for the mix-up.
When you said, "Hmm Sydney you've not dealt with my post the way I intended it. Instead you've just believed what some 'anti' Mormon literature has told you about the changes to the BoM. Perhaps you should look up that in the FAIR LDS link you have on the side of your blog." I have to smile... because you assume my sources are wrong and your sources are right. I have read everything on the FAIR site. I read it when I was doing my investigation, and I still link to it here! Of course I know what they say, but I think they have very good reasons for saying those things... to keep members active. Their answers are not good enough for me, Nicko. Sorry.
If God wants me to believe these things, he wouldn't have made it so hard to believe. Just my opinion.
Once again, I do need to remind you that I don't believe in any religion. I agree that the scientific data I believe in would be negative to all religion, and that is why I believe what I believe.
I don't know if there is a God, I don't believe any religion has it "right," and I am okay with that.
It's certainly not going to stop me from being a good person and living my life with morals. I honestly believe that people believe in religion because they think it gives them and their children morals, there are other reasons too... but you get the idea. Maybe God is up there laughing his ass off about the religions? Maybe he thinks the ceremonies and religious services are hilarious? Sometimes I feel that way.
I don't have any less love for God, and I truly believe that if God exists, he/she will understand why I had these questions and doubts.
God isnt petty.
June 1, 2008 at 7:41 PM
You say God isn't petty Syd, but where is your proof of that?
Essentially this is where you and I have a line drawn in the sand which won't be crossed by either or...although I do appreciate Science, I can see the rather swiss cheese problems of it (but that mainly has to do with my academic position rather than my religious).
I don't think I ever sensed that you hadn't read the FAIR responses, and to be honest, I don't necessarily like FAIR, but its a good responder to what is sometimes rather flimsy criticism.
The DNA thing is really quite spiked in my opinion. Spiked being that geared towards proving the BoM wrong no matter what. And of essence also there tends to be some limited base information being used to contradict the fundamental parts of the BoM such as Lehi as a Jew, which is false.
But again, this is where we will always disagree.
As for the Sacred v Secret debate, that seems to be again something I wasn't leaning to. I was merely suggesting that Faith makes something Sacred (such as the BoM or the Cross for the Catholics, or a Wall for the Jews..etc,etc,etc). Essentially, Science takes away the Faith element. And that is what I'm getting at here. Religion is based on Faith (all of em) and as you've pointed out, its obviously for some, and not for others. How you tread that decision is completely up to you.
As for the Sacred and why God commands certain things to be kept this way (secret), I tend to look at alot of religions as keeping certain aspects of their 'church' life secret to the outside world. Ancient Israel did (the Tabernacle was very sacred and the High Priest alone was allowed in the Holy of Holies), certain aspects of Buddhism are considered secret (certain shrines my Mum used to tell me she wasn't allowed into as a child in Burma), Islam...there are many religions around the world which keep elements secret. Why? I suppose if I was to use a Durkheimean approach for a moment, it would be because once they are no longer 'secret' they are no longer 'sacred' being that they lose their special significance. It's kinda like an unspoiled mountainside which becomes littered with houses and tourists and infrastructure, for mountaineers, this reduces the majesty of the experience as it is now inundated with 'humans'. So to speak. I suppose that if we were to fling the doors of the Temple open, it would lose that 'setting apart' feel from the world and lose its 'special' significance to us members. And same with all those other religions.
I guess its pretty hard to explain, but I hope that I've given it a good shot to you. Personally I think there are some things around the world (both man made and naturally made) which are sacred and special and do deserve some element of 'preservation' and 'protection' in order to enhance and hold that special feel to it. The temple for me is one of those things....
June 1, 2008 at 7:46 PM
I know you asked many questions here Nicko, but I am so sleepy and worn out that I don't have the mental capacity to get into a huge discussion about it right *now* I will reply to most of this stuff tomorrow :)
But I did want to respond to your first sentence... "You say God isn't petty Syd, but where is your proof of that?"
Why would you think that God is petty? Maybe my sleepy brain isn't grasping the concept at this point and time, but the all-knowing and forgiving God I would love to believe in wouldn't be petty. He would have the ability to look into hearts and souls.
Sorry... ramble I go... ZZZZZzzzZZZzZzzZzZzzz :)
June 3, 2008 at 6:01 AM
hahaha zzzzz i know that feeling Sydney! I've been sleep deprived for a loooonnnggg time now!!! Have you ever tried this thing called Valerium root?? (sorry spelling is probably wrong) Really good for helping promote good restful sleep...give it a bang.
As for the 'petty God' thing, I don't think God is petty at all. But I do think that he believes strongly in justice and that there are certain things in life that stop us from entering his presence. And that without the Atonement, we couldn't come close to his presence.
But you mention that you don't think God is 'petty'. I merely am questioning where you get this evidence from? You seem to 'want' this from me all the time, but you come to some clear surmations yourself, based on???
See, even a belief in God has to encapsulate some element of Faith...unless you've seen God...
June 3, 2008 at 9:21 AM
Hey Nicko, thanks for the tip on valerium root. I will check it out. Heaven knows I need help sleeping every now and then, and then it all hits me at the same time and I become exhausted. Ugh!
As for the God being petty thing... as I have mentioned before, I have no idea if there is a God. If there is, I wouldn't think for one second that He would be petty. I agree that He would believe strongly in justice, but I certainly doubt that He would be angered or upset that I made the decisions I made about the Mormon Church. There is more evidence (in ex-Mormon's opinions) against the church than for it, and he will take that into consideration.
As much as you believe in the church in your heart and soul, I don't believe. We are on two opposite poles. The spirit tells you that the church is true, and I get the same feelings that it isn't. Who is right and who is wrong? There is no way to know, is there? Not until we go to the next life... if there is one.
The church's own doctrine contradicts itself, and that is a huge issue. The church denied polygamy while practicing it. I consider that a lie, and while many people claim that God commanded them to lie, I would have to claim that God would never ask them to lie.
We could go in circles for days, huh?
June 3, 2008 at 11:03 AM
Tom Kimball: I understand that trying to grasp the DNA debate can be a little mind bending. Interestingly it wasn't Southerton who was muddying the water in this discussion. This is why people think that we may not be able to know what DNA from the tribe of Manasseh would look like. Actually we do. Simon addresses this here:
http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/Losing2.htm
If one can grasp that mtDNA is not actually “our” DNA but the DNA of a symbiotic entity within our cells. I think people could wrap their mind about this whole concept. mitochondria are little things within each of our cells that create energy for our cells. It’s like a parasite except that our cells would die without them. Mitochondria have their own DNA. We don’t get our hair color or our size and shape from this DNA because this DNA belongs only to the mitochondria. Interestingly the mail sperm does not carry the mans mitochondria to the egg. So it’s only passed from mother to daughter and instead of recombining with other DNA like our regular DNA does. It reproduces itself exactly from mother to daughters and sons. And since there are only about 26 different spellings of mitochondria, it’s a really great tool for looking at groups of people. The other advantage is that when Columbus and other conquerors invaded the Americas. The men could not pass on their mtDNA on to the Native American women. It was only when European women cam to the new world and mixed with the indigenous population that the population studies becomes more complex.
Based on mtDNA studies of hundreds of tribes in the Americas. We now know that Native American populations have ancestry in Siberia. FARMS and FAIR have the toughest argument. What they are asking scientists is to “prove that Atlantis didn’t exist or to prove that Bigfoot doesn’t exist.” And quite frankly, as a Mormon. I’m embarrassed that these people would allow themselves to be reduced to such a question.
Rod Meldrum on the other hand is taking the que from false statements by John Tevedtnes that the X mtDNA is Hebrew and since X is really only found in Native Americans around the Great Lakes region. Kind of like what Joseph Smith said in his revelations. Bells have been going off in the North American Geographists ears and they are boldly announcing. “ the problem has been solved, you can safely go back to your homes, it ok now” (sorry, a little humor). Quite frankly most Mormons will find Meldrum’s position more satisfying. The only glitch is that is just isn’t true about X. It also comes from Siberia. The fact is that there is no evidence that any Middle Eastern DNA came to the Americas before Columbus. And if the Book of Mormon is for it’s decedents. Then we have a serious problem. there are none.
My best guess is that the North American Geographists will win out over the Limited Geographists from FAIR. I doubt that FARMS and FAIR have any idea of the growing enemy base they have been creating among rank and file Latter-day Saints. All of the believing Mormons in my family ether loathes or at least distrusts them. I doubt they will be of much influence in the coming years.
June 4, 2008 at 11:19 PM
Hey Sydney I think we could go in circles all day and all night about these things, but if we stop discussing them/debating them I think that is when we stop being human...don't you think??
Don't believe for a second that I don't like being questioned on my faith! I do I really do. Mainly because it helps strengthen it and helps me ask questions and continually rely on the spiritual experiences I've had in order to justify my position in the church. You may say I'm blinded, but I think we've come to the point in our internet friendship (whoa...that sounded weird) that we can respect each other enough to disagree quite starkly. But does that mean we stop debating? I don't think so. If anything, at least I can provide the other side of the story so that its kinda like parliament yeah? That probably makes no sense so I'll stop now...haha.
As for the usage of mtDNA I really do like that article you linked there Tom. I assumed that was your name sorry. But if we are to use mtDNA which is passed on from the mother, then we're in another different world as far as I know. Forgive me because I don't understand this stuff very well, but as far as I know, if we were to utilise mtDNA doesn't that mean we need to turn to Ishmael's mother who essentially was the mother of Nephi/Laman's children? Which means we need to know her ancestory which as far as I know, we don't.
But that leaves out a bunch of other things. One that the Nephite/Lamanite civilisations were alone in the Americas, one thing that there has been some indication against from people like Elder McConkie. Another thing is that the Nephite heritage was destroyed and the Lamanite heritage was dominant. Later however, we could easily surmise that this group intermingled with various other cultures to the point now that the DNA is undeterminable. I read an abstract of a book by a non-member can't remember her name and I'll confess to not reading it, but she basically asserted that the DNA of Native American's would forever be effected by the introduction of Western Diseases and so on....
And then there is the Mulekites who we assume to be of Jewish heritage...how they effected the DNA of the Nephites is undeterminable...
Essentially I'm not arguing that we can't find an answer, but that its alot less clearer than what those who report that there is no DNA evidence suggests. I guess I'm just trying to explain why I don't take too much stock in this DNA thing...
As for FARMS and FAIR, I think that they are quite well read only in Utah. Here in Australia, most individuals have never heard of them...nor do they even read them.
June 5, 2008 at 6:26 PM
Whoa I just re-read this and realised I made a huge boo boo. When I said Ishmael's mother I meant Ishmael's Wife....sorry...grrrrr....typing too quickly for my thoughts!!!!