DNA and the Book of Mormon, What Exactly Has Been Proven? —Cold Steel

Although I've read a bit on both sides of this issue, I don't really know where things stand. What, exactly, can be proven to date? Does anyone maintain that we presently know enough to say that North American Indians and the South and Middle American Mayan and Aztec tribes are demonstrably not of any stock that could have been from a people living in Jerusalem?

Does anyone take into account, or suggest that it should be taken into account, the curse that the Lamanites were put under? Nephi said: "And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity."

"Sore" means to cause misery, sorrow, distress, embarrassment and/or irritation -- so if this were a sore curse, it might very well entail many of these things. "Wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair...the Lord God caused a skin of blackness to come upon them...that they shall be loathsome unto [my] people...." Furthermore, "cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done."

The curse went beyond skin coloring -- that seemed to be merely a marking, for Nephi continued: " And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey."

So this miserable, sorrowful and distressing curse changed the skin color of the Lamanites as well as their very natures. Could it, too, have changed the DNA markers, causing the new, dominant DNA to overwrite that of any Nephites with whom they mixed their seed? In other words, does today's research depend on those markers being preserved through the "cursing" process?

Do BoM DNA critics go so far as to say that genetic research is a clear showstopper or are they willing to concede it's not quite to that point? And finally, what, if any, link exists between South and Middle American and North American Indians? Do they all appear to be from the same stock?

Thanks for any comments!

Do you really want to know? Or are you looking for reassurance that what you already believe is at least plausible? (Could dictate the kind of responses you see here.)

QUOTE (Cold Steel @ Apr 30 2006, 08:15 PM)

What, exactly, can be proven to date? Does anyone maintain that we presently know enough to say that North American Indians and the South and Middle American Mayan and Aztec tribes are demonstrably not of any stock that could have been from a people living in Jerusalem?

Even Simon Southerton acknowledged recently that there was "plenty of room to park your faith" in some aspect of mDNA--I forget which. Whether he or others in the field (waiting for the backlash about whether he's actually "in the field" ...) believe there's any likelihood of Hebrew ancestry is a different matter of course.

QUOTE (Cold Steel @ Apr 30 2006, 08:15 PM)

Does anyone take into account, or suggest that it should be taken into account, the curse that the Lamanites were put under?

Yes, it's been suggested, but please consider the implication--that God didn't just change their DNA: he made it Asian. Seems rather racist, doesn't it?

Some questions if I may. This could probably be its own thread, but here goes:

QUOTE (Great King Peter @ Apr 30 2006, 11:34 PM)

I know next to nothing about DNA. In my 45 years I have learned that what is fact to day might not be fact tomorrow.

So are facts irrelevant then? Is it conceivable that the facts could become clear enough to convince you that Joseph Smith's stories weren't factual?

QUOTE (Great King Peter @ Apr 30 2006, 11:34 PM)

The church is not true or untrue because of mans CURRENT understanding of DNA.

We agree that's not the reason the church is ... whatever it is. So is there a relevant example you're thinking of where the prevailing scientific thought on something as big as Native American ancestry did a 180 because of some new discovery? I'm having trouble picturing this.

QUOTE (Great King Peter @ Apr 30 2006, 11:34 PM)

I would not want to base my beliefs on what science says is fact.

Is it safe to say, though, that you would want your belief to be based on fact? I guess I'm trying to decipher whether you think the current scientific understanding of Native American ancestry is altogether wrong, or just doesn't tell the whole story. From the points you made it's obvious you're not comfortable with the conclusions reached thus far. Others have found ways of reconciling their faith with the emerging scientific story; does your view of the Book of Mormon allow for such latitude?