Talk:Genetics and the Book of Mormon/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Again, with the NPOV

A lot of good information has been added lately: [1]. Unfortunately these changes also contain a lot of a priori cherrypicking along the lines of "you can't prove there's not an invisible pink dragon in my garage". These arguments might be fine if you're writing an "Intelligent Design" tract, but they are written from a very transparent and partisan agenda and therefore violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.

Additionally, considering the extensive discussion that already addresses some of these points here in the talk page, changes along these lines would have a better chance of approaching WP:NPOV and WP:NOR if they were discussed here and the previous discussion responded to. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/ub/w:s/w:l) 02:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed image(s)

Certian images have been removed by me because they have been added to a category that makes them speediable, most likely Category:Images with no copyright tag. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 17:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Limited Geography Model

I added a citation request regarding the Limited Geography Model. The paragraph implies that the LGM was created in response to the genetic challenge. In reality it has been around for many years, and it was formalized in Sorenson's book "An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon" in 1985. LDS Scholars have been using this model for years, although the general church population is often not aware of it and naturally tends to believe the Hemispheric Geography Model. It is, however, incorrect to imply that the LGM was created in response to the genetic challenge. It is true that the LGM is used as a response to the genetic challenge. Bochica 04:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Nephites and Lamanites in the Book of Mormon

Forcing myself to not do a wholesale revision of this section as it stands, I'd like to point out that the terms "nephite" and "lamanite" lost their bloodline connotation relatively early in the Book of Mormon. With dissenters and the absorption of the Mulekites (and presumably other peoples) and even Jacob's early description of the terms found in Jacob 1:13-14

13 Now the people which were not Lamanites were Nephites; nevertheless, they were called Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites.

14 But I, Jacob, shall not hereafter distinguish them by these names, but I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites, or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings.

This gives us Lamanites (including Lamanites, Lemuelites, some Ishmaelites and Zoramites, whoever fought against the "nephites") and the Nephites (Nephi's family, Jacob and Joseph's, possibly some Ishmaelites and/or Zoramites and later Mulekites). Already it's obvious that the main concern was not so much descent but affiliation. gdavies 06:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Counter-rebuttal: relative contribution of believed Hebrew ancestry

This paragraph currently seems to hinge on an interpretation of the word "principal" as generally supportive of the hemispheric model by meaning "most," or "largest part." I, and many other people in the LDS community, define principal as "first" or "main," which would count the statement in the Book of Mormon true (principal ancestors), not go against what leaders have said (interpreting "principal" to mean "main"), and generally support the LGM. I think this distinction needs to be made in the article... gdavies 16:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed section "Rebuttal of specific statements made by Thomas Murphy"

Thomas Murphy has made statements to the effect that DNA research indicates that the ancestors of Native Americans came from North East Asia. [2] This conflicts with modern findings indicating that the closest genetic match to Native Americans is in central Asia, around the area of the Altay Mountains, as noted above. Prevailing theory also holds that the peopling of America was accomplished by one to three migration events rather than a continuous flow of people from Eastern Siberia. (PNAS 28 August 2001 10244–10249 vol. 98 no. 18)

This really has nothing to do with the article. Perhaps it belongs in a Thomas Murphy article, perhaps in an article on Native Americans, but genetics and the Book of Mormon? I'm removing it. 213.80.115.15 15:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Additions regarding a physical change in DNA

There are some issues with the following statements:

"This physical change, which was carried from generation to generation, obviously included an alteration in the genetic makeup of the Lamanites."

We cannot use the word "obviously" here. The BoM contains no explicit information that allows us to conclude that a genetic change took place. The best we could do here is to find some scholar who makes a case for this and then cite him.

"Since the Book of Mormon teaches that the Lamanites are the principle ancestors of the American Indians, it is very likely that a Native American may share very few genetic markers with those of Israelite ancestry."

This statement is incorrect. The only place that "principal ancestors of the American Indians" is mentioned is in an introduction added in 1981. The original 1830 BoM makes no mention of this, therefore the BoM does not teach this.

"If the Book of Mormon is taken to be a true account, the alteration of the Lamanites' Israelite DNA shortly after their arrival in America from Jerusalem may preclude any attempts at genetic linkage."

Again, we can't include this assumption and state it as a fact. If a scholarly article can be located in which some evidence of this can be presented, then we could include that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bochica (talk • contribs) 21:10, 18 April 2007‎

The problem of a genetic approach

I looked at the suggestions above, and added both a sentence at the end of this section and references to two scriptures. I don't know about scholarly citations -- I'll have a look. Let me know what you think, because I'm new to this. Here's the new sentence:

The Lamanites and Nephites were still physically distinct several generations later,[9] suggesting that the physical change may have included alteration of DNA.

--Mstanner 06:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I'm still quite new at this myself. :-). If I understand Wikipedia policy correctly, the second part of the sentence probably constitues what they call "original research." In other words, it we can find a source that supports it, we can include it, but we can't draw the conclusion on our own. I'll take a look and see what I can find as well. Bochica 02:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm following up on my comment above from April. I've moved this entire section here as potential original research. I am unable to find any source to cite which supports the idea that the Lamanites DNA was actually altered. In addition, the last paragraph (cite request since August), makes no sense and simply exists to refute the speculative paragraph above it.

Certain passages of the Book of Mormon suggest that it would be impossible to support or refute the claims of the Book or Mormon with DNA evidence. After the children of Lehi separated into the Nephites and the Lamanites, the Lord changed the physical appearance of the Lamanites to discourage intermarriage between the believing Nephites and the unbelieving Lamanites.(2 Nephi 1:11). The Lamanites and Nephites were still physically distinct several generations later (Alma 3:6). Although it is not known how the Lord accomplished the change in appearance of the Lamanites, according to science, a physical change represented in a population would have to be accompanied by a change in DNA. With the Lamanites skin being changed to a darker color to separate them from their brethren, it is not known how extensively their DNA was altered. Although one might counter that just the portion of DNA that controls skin color was changed, LDS people may support the idea that we do not know the complete designs of God, and any alteration could have been possible, even simply to leave the question unanswered by science and for believers of the the Book of Mormon to rely more on faith. The whole issue is complicated by Lamanite and Nephite intermarriage and how the Lamanites destroyed the Nephites. Since we don't know how much of pure Israelite DNA was passed on from the Lamanite's Israelite progenitors, the whole issue of DNA evidence sees an impossibility to support or refute the Book of Mormon.

Critics point out that it is not physically possible for a Jewish person to be transformed into a Native American person (with regards to skin color, physical features, hair, etc.) during that person's lifetime.

I don't think that any researchers would seriously consider the statements above to be supportable. Bochica (talk) 05:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Cdowis (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Changed

Rebuttal of LA Times report by William Lobdell

The argument that the DNA issue can be resolved with reference to the Book of Mormon containing errors has not been used by any LDS supporter. It is a fake argument, and contradicts LDS doctrine by implying that the entire history of the BOM is unreliable, rather than minor errors. This argument was replaced by a reference to the many articles referenced on the LDS web site.

Also added definition of "principal" for clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdowis (talk • contribs) 19:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Archaeology merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was merge after limited response - please let me know if you disagree. --Descartes1979 (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

---

I propose we merge Archaeology and the Book of Mormon#Genetic studies into this article. A brief mention in the archaeology article is all that is needed. I think this is a cut and dried candidate for a merge, so in the absence of a lot of interest or voting, I will move forward with the merge in a weeks time.

• Merge --Descartes1979 (talk) 21:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge The section in Archaeology and the Book of Mormon should simply be a summary section. Bochica (talk) 14:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge — Val42 (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge logistics

As I was performing the merge, I noticed that by and large the content from the other page is already here. As such, I am not inserting this text anywhere. I am including it below in case someone wants to pick it apart an see if there is something that can be salvaged, but I think we are ok. --Descartes1979 (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, many people have examined existing genetic data in order to determine its relationship to the people described in the Book of Mormon. Several studies have been performed in which DNA from modern indigenous Americans has been examined in an attempt to determine Native American origins. Several authors have published works that suggest that current studies of genetic anthropology using DNA evidence do not provide support for a Semitic origin of New World populations as suggested by traditional views of the Book of Mormon. Other researchers warn against using genetics to attempt to prove or disprove the historicity of the Book of Mormon, citing a lack of source genes and the improbability of tracing Israelite DNA even if it was present.

Noachian flood

I've removed the following paragraph from the article due to lack of citations:

Other critics[attribution needed] of the "limited geography" model note that that the Book of Mormon, as well as other Mormon scriptures, point out that all living things in the Americas were destroyed by the Noachian flood. According to Mormon Doctrine the Noachian Flood is not a metaphor, but an historical world-wide flood. This flood, according to the Book of Mormon, killed off any Bering Strait immigrant inhabitants of the Americas long before they could have had a chance to intermarry with any Lamanites. Accordingly, the proponents of Limited Geography are, to the extent they posit intermarriage between Native Americans who arrived via a land bridge from Asia with Lamanites, espousing an heretical position.

It is more likely that this is just another viewpoint on the topic, one that I sincerely doubt the LDS church has endorsed. Citations are essential to determining how prevalent this view is. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This flood, according to the Book of Mormon, killed off any Bering Strait immigrant inhabitants of the Americas long before they could have had a chance to intermarry with any Lamanites. The Book of Mormon says no such thing. I doubt that a secondary source exists that asserts this - it appears to be someone's original research. Bochica (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Introduction Information

I thought the change in the BOM introduction was significant enough to be in the article, rather than just the footnotes. It is appropriate to examine the assumptions behind this discussion. The main assumption is that science and religion should be in harmony. The reality is, there are profound differences (for example, the Creation-evolution controversy), no matter what religion we may talk about, unless it's some science/religion hybrid. I'm firmly Mormon, but if I wasn't, I'd be agnostic. I should also say that I believe that revelation is the key to true religion. --WikiWes77 (talk) 01:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The Q-P36 genetic haplotype as evidence linking Hebrew and Native American DNA

It is traditionally held that the "lost tribes" of Israel were taken to the North and possibly as far a Siberia. These tribes would be genetically similar to the tribes of Ephraim & Manasseh of the book of mormon.

Also the "Jews" were forced from the lands of their herritage and only have recently returned. The majority of people living in the middle east would not match the original Israelites very closely.

What I'm getting at is: Wouldn't a strong correlation between the genetics of the Native americans and Siberians prove the point the LDS church makes? --Evan Davis 00:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure... on the flip side, a lack of strong correlation between modern Jews and modern Native Americans absolutely doesn't prove anything. The Book of Mormon doesn't describe a group going through siberia to the New world, although perhaps both groups (modern Native Americans and the people described in the Book of Mormon) could possibly have a common ancestor? I haven't looked at this much, but clearly we don't have enough evidence to make any conclusions whatsoever based off of genetics. Some have argued for a Jaredite link to Siberian-Asian DNA, and remnants of the Jaredites being intermarried with Laman's descendants (also accounting for their darker skin)... it's a stretch but it could answer some questions...

Another random idea... we don't know who was in Mulek's group, or what of what descent they were. There's definitely a possibility that people joined Mulek's group along the way. gdavies 02:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

What I was saying was that science tells us that the people of the Americas may have a common ancestry with people from Siberia. If the lost ten tribes were taken north into that country it would explain the common origin (Israel) of both peoples.

As far as the Jaredite link goes, nowhere in the Book of Mormon does it expressly speak of Jaredite stragglers and if they intermingled with the Nephites or not. So their guess is as good as mine.

Mulek was one of the sons of the king Zedekiah who I think was a decendent of Judah.

There is a son of Zedekiah who is not accounted for, as far as I am aware... --Some Guy with his head in the clouds —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC).

I'm going to spend some time looking at the ojectivity of this article and see if there is a better way to write it that doesn't lend authority to speculation on either side. --Evan Davis 00:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

LDS researchers compare existing genetic evidence with the Book of Mormon story

I find this section misleading, basically we have two disaffected Mormons (who are likely underqualified) portrayed as "what LDS scholars think." Very disingenuous portrayal, I'm going to make an edit pointing out these are fringe players and by no means represent the gist of LDS scholarship. gdavies 21:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Mesoamerican pyramids

To what degree have Mormon theologists/theorists consider those structures to be relevant or helpful to their assertion? Was this a factor in their early beliefs, or recently, at all, or has anybody pointed out this before? Sceptik (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added comments and references in the “Book of Mormon population models” section, regarding the original North American mound builder setting for the Book of Mormon. See also bookofmormonpromisedland.comOnondaga (talk) 02:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Original research

This article has a great deal of apparent original research. For example, the section on "mutation rates" seems to link this research to LDS apologetics on the basis of original research. The cited article does not even mention Native Americans, and unless there is a separate peer-reviewed source that makes that link, the whole section ought to be deleted. Similarly, the "comparison with the Lemba" section ought to be deleted unless some peer-reviewed article makes that comparison with Native Americans. Wikipedia editors themselves cannot make the leap in applying this research to Native Americans where none exists in the peer-reviewed literature. Likewise for QP-36. There is also apparent original research scattered through the remainder of the article. COGDEN 01:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Addressed serious WP:NOR and WP:NPOV issues

I had to do a major revision, mainly removing some egregious original research and partisan NPOV violations. Keep in mind people, this is not the place to try to establish a controversial argument as fact. Please read WP:OR and WP:NPOV; and please discuss restoring any of this material here if you want to do so, to address the significant reasons given for their removal.

My revisions are explained below, by section:

Rebuttal of LA Times report by William Lobdell

I kept the first part of this. Subsequent parts were removed because they were marked by argumentative, facially POV tone: "Lobdell seems to believe... Actually, ..." "Some of this may be..."

I put the Q-P36 bit into neutral terms and added some referenced material, while leaving it in.

In reference to this section, "Followup of genetic claims in the media," what is this section even doing here? I don't seen any reason to keep it as it has nothing to do with genetic studies and the Book of Mormon. The section doesn't answer any questions or present any facts, instead it just echoes the common discussion of assumed inerrancy (or not) of the Book of Mormon... The layout is also troubling to me, it seems like the many and various problems with Murphy's conclusions (based on his own thinking, not any kind of research) are buried in another section farther down. I think the general argument and the LDS responses (which are solid academically) should be summarized in this section, rather than giving one view preference over the other. gdavies 07:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Rebuttal of specific statements made by Thomas Murphy

I left in part of this, but removed parts that violated both NOR and NPOV, such as:

"Thus the current theories are more in tune with the Jaredite colonization of America as described in the Book of Ether than were earlier theories..."

This is bad science and bad Mormon doctrine. It conflicts directly with the BoM introduction, which says the "Lamanites", not Jaredites, are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.

Furthermore, the Book of Mormon says that "The Jaredite nation is utterly destroyed" (Ether chapter 15). Kind of hard for an "utterly destroyed" nation to become the main ancestors of later inhabitants of the land.

Finally, the Jaredites came from Mesopotamia in the first place (assuming face value for the brief reference to the Jaredites departing after the tower of Babel), and should have been genetically similarly Middle Eastern with the Nephites & Lamanites. Genetic affinity between Native Americans and central Asians - i.e., the region around the Altay Mountains, as indicated by nearest genetic similarity - does nothing at all to support the claim that "the Book of Ether is now more in line with the scientific mainstream than before the advent of DNA identification technology."

Evidently this article hasn't received a lot of attention, though it's a very commonly discussed subject. As to "the Jaredite nation" being utterly destroyed... a side note by John L Sorenson in The Years of the Jaredites:

Of course the "end of the Jaredite people" by no means indicates that all Jaredites were wiped out. That would be far-fetched. There is solid evidence in the Book of Mormon itself, and certainly more from archaeology, indicating that remnants of the old population survived in various spots after the final organized battle. The scripture only talks, after all, of the destruction of the Jaredite people as a social entity, not the extinction of the entire population. Why the later Nephite account does not take more account of the Jaredite remnants could be treated at some length, but not here.

Although more evidence would be useful, it's evident that Sorenson has found a Jaredite genetic contribution to the Nephites and/or Lamanites plausible (though by no means the bulk of genetic material). gdavies 06:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Another thing I think is important to point out, the Book of Mormon points to the Lamanites as the "principal ancestors of the American Indians," but does not discuss the ancestry of the Lamanites. A Lamanite group considerably composed of remnants of the Jaredites would not directly contradict this statement... I'm not saying that I support it, but the question regarding Native American (and Lamanite) ancestry is much more open than I used to think... gdavies 23:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Principal Ancestors

Violated NOR.

Descent from Lehi

The POV material not only did original research, but specifically contradicts its scientific source, saying that "Even though Underhill rejected the idea that Q-M3 is that young (i.e. 2147 years old), it could still be that most men with the Q-M3 lineage are descended from a single male who lived 150 years before Christ." In fact, Underhill cited that figure as one of several previous estimates from the literature, with other estimates ranging up to 32,000 years; he had good reason to reject the estimate of 2147 years. The POV material cherry-picked the one favorable date and asserted it as fact ("The result indicated that the M3 mutation had occurred only 2147 years before").

The Lemba have no Semitic MtDNA

OR, contradicts scientific research.

Statements by Murphy

Purely ad hominem attack that is irrelevant to "Genetics and the Book of Mormon". Maybe rewrite and add to the Thomas Murphy article. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 07:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Factors affecting DNA composition of the New World population

Michael F. Whiting works at a university run and attended (almost wholely) by LDS members. His comments may not be neutral. 60.241.237.166 (talk) 09:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The Brigham Young University has academic restrictions on students for being critical of LDS beliefs. Students are allowed to "analyze or discuss" but limitations may be placed on them if they "contradict or oppose" the church's teachings. It can be assumed that these rules are applied to staff more vigorously. Due to these restrictions, fair and unbiased skeptical research into such topics would be near non-existent at this university. Michael F. Whiting's comments are probably extremely biased and possibly even scripted by the university. 203.28.106.137 (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

"a limitation is reasonable when the faculty behavior or expression seriously and adversely affects the university mission or the Church." [3] With this policy, Michael F. Whiting would not be able to make comments that concur with the DNA evidence without threatening his own position and career at the university. 203.28.106.137 (talk) 00:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Mulek and Davidian Line

I find this statement dubious or representative of original research:

"Such that, if 10+kya X2g arising from a single individual line can be found today, surely there's a detectable haplotype from the Davidic line that can be seen from entry into a population 2,600 ya via Mulek, if he and the people of Zarahelma (his descendants) existed as posited by the Book of Mormon authors."

Of concern here is the way in which mutations are produced and are propagated through populations. The assumption that because X2g is identifiable from 10+kya, a small founding group from more recent history should be immediately identifiable shows a lack of understanding of the scientific issues involved ( Founder Effect, Genetic Drift, etc). I recommend that the quoted text be removed unless we can find someone who has demonstrated this conclusion.

As this line seems to be the core purpose/conclusion of this section perhaps the section should also be removed. The section has additional issues such as using statements/research about mtDNA and then equating this to male-to-male descent (the Davidic royal line) which would in fact need to be y-chromosome based. I am not aware of any "Davidic line" y-chromosomal lines that could be used as a source to match new world populations. Again if this information is available it should be cited.

Mavasher 11:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It's been a couple of weeks, there hasn't been any response. I'm deleting the section. It's in the history if someone can find the necessary citations/research. Mavasher 18:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Original research and synthesis

This was brought up last December. I've just had my attention drawn to the article and, without having looked at this talk page, deleted a couple of sections where editor(s) had used various sources to build up an argument none of them actually made. There is still more OR, eg the section "The Middle Eastern Origin of Lehi" and the one below it, at least. Dougweller (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

This whole article is badly written, has poor structure and may not even be encyclopedic. I would work on it but I hate getting into silly wikipedia cruftwars and this looks like a prime candidate for that.--Blue Tie (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Cleaning up some redundancies and deleting some unreferenced statements

I’m deleting the last sentence at the end of the “Nephites and Lamanites in the Book of Mormon” section, since 1) it uses the present tense, which is inaccurate because the wording in the introduction has been removed, and 2) it is redundant because it was mentioned earlier in the article.

Also, I’m removing the last sentence in the paragraph starting with “the Book of Mormon describes,” since the reference is only a link to an online dictionary, and does not actually support the assertion that “LDS supporters point out that principal does not necessarily mean majority.”

Finally, I’m excising the middle paragraph in the “Book of Mormon Population Models.”

The Book of Mormon describes a major group of Hebrew-descended peoples, the Nephites, being entirely wiped out during the fourth century AD, which could have decreased the amount of Middle Eastern DNA substantially.

The main point lacks a reference, and all of the material subsequent to the quote is found elsewhere in the article multiple times.Kant66 (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Ivins' quote

is in Statements regarding the Hebrew ancestry of Book of Mormon people and The genetic challenge. This is a stylistic annoyance. it also seems to be cited wrong in the first instance, a bigger problem. i'm too lazy to fix it. Romnempire (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of BYU DNA article

The insertion regarding the BYU study on the possible founder effect was deleted. The rationale was that it represented original research since it does not explicitly mention the Book of Mormon. It does, however, mention the plausibility that a founding group in the Americas could have had a genetically detectable signature when it mixed with other native populations. This is obviously related to the issue here. Kant66 (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOR. That is original research, whether you or I or anyone sees it as relevant, the authors of the study did not suggest it was. Dougweller (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

All right.Kant66 (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions For Significant Changes To This Article

Since I have a conflict of interest regarding this article (I publish a particular model for the Book of Mormon lands), I will only propose changes here on the talk page rather than editing the article itself.

Although this article as it currently stands does contain statements, arguments, and references about the debate surrounding genetics and the Book of Mormon, I think it fails to give the reader of the article the proper encyclopedic knowledge necessary to understand the statements it presents regarding ancestry and genetics.

In the first place, statements regarding the ancestry presented by the Book of Mormon should be presented with specificity regarding the number of possible mtDNA and Y-Chromosomal lineages whenever possible. The current article simply makes generalizations about the lineages such as:

"The understanding of Joseph Smith, and, traditionally, of Mormons in general, is that the Book of Mormon indicates that the Amerindians are Lamanites, descended from Lehi, and a 'remnant of the House of Israel'".

Ignoring the fact that this and many other generalizations in the article are unsourced, the problem that I would like to discuss is how this generalization, even if it was sourced, describes only one of the five explicitly-described founding ancestors in Lehi's party and focuses the genetic debate on only one of the three migrations which the book describes. A better statement that is in keeping with what is already part of the article would be that:

"The traditional understanding of Joseph Smith and Mormons in general is that the Book of Mormon purports to describe three founding migrations to the Western Hemisphere which, in whole or in part, contribute the ancestry of the Amerindians and that those Amerindians are a "remnant of the House of Israel"".

The information the Book of Mormon purports for possible founding lineages should be specified including:

1. An unknown number of founding lineages from the the Book of Mormon's purported account of the "Jaredites" who the book describes as migrating to the Americas from the time and place of the biblical account of the "Tower of Babel". (Not sure how to handle the debate about whether this lineage should be found in modern Amerindians or whether all Jaredite founding lineages should be presumed to have come to an end)
2. Exactly two founding female lineages and exactly three founding male lineages from the Book of Mormon's purported account of Lehi's party. The Book of Mormon purports that Lehi is a direct descendant of the Israelite tribe of Joseph. The other founding lineages in Lehi's party are purported to originate the old world city of Jerusalem and include Lehi's wife, Sariah, a man named Ishmael, Ishmael's wife, and a man named Zorom.
3. An unknown number of founding lineages from the Book of Mormon's purported account of the migration of the "Mulekites". Among the purported migrants is one male lineage descended from the biblical 'Zedikiah, king of Judah'.

It is incorrect to say that traditional Mormon understanding is that the "Amerindians are Lamanites". Nephite defections to the Lamanite culture is, and always has been, well-understood in Mormon tradition. In addition, traditional Mormon understanding is that the Nephite culture is a mix of the gene-pools of at least the Nephites and the Mulekites. As seen in this article, LDS leaders and scholars have made various statements regarding Amerindian descent from the Lamanites. All of these statements were made with the understanding that the Lamanite culture being referenced was explicitly known to be a mixed gene-pool descended from the founding lineages of the migrations of Lehi's party and the Mulekites. Since this article currently chooses to stick with unsourced statements about "traditional Mormon understanding", quotations regarding descent should be presented with the traditional understanding that the Book of Mormon uses the terms "Nephites" and "Lamanites" as labels of cultures derived from gene-pools that are commonly understood to be mixed with each other.

I think this article would be better served if it got away from comparing "traditional understanding" and focused on presenting a factual background. After a brief introduction it should present specifics on the founding lineages required by the text of the Book of Mormon using the book itself as the source for those expectations. The next section should summarize scientific knowledge of prehistoric migrations to the Americas focusing on mtDNA and Y-Chromosomal markers. After this background is in place then quotes from genetic studies and LDS scholars can be chosen and presented based on their relation to this background. Without such a background it becomes easier for editors to present arguments unsupported by the facts.

Since by this time you probably think that I think that this will result in an article supporting the Book of Mormon I want to say that I don't think so. Since my suggestions here will be scrutinized through the lens of the bias that I explicitly admit to, I think it's fair to state here on the talk page that I think the result of these changes will be an article that shows that current scientific knowledge does not support the genetics required by the Book of Mormon. Although I may wish that current science supported my opinions regarding the Book of Mormon historicity, this is not the case. I just want the article to frame the arguments properly. Bofmmodel (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent IP edits

Claiming to be reducing bias, an IP has added bias to this article twice. I reverted the IP the first time, reverted only some changes the 2nd. On the IP's talk page I wrote: You removed "There is generally no support amongst mainstream historians and archaeologists for the historicity of the Book of Mormon " - this is true and belongs in the article. You changed "Since the late 1990s and the pioneering work of Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza and others, scientists have developed techniques that attempt to use genetic markers to indicate the ethnic background and history of individual people. The data developed by these mainstream scientists tell us that the Native Americans have very distinctive DNA markers, and that some of them are most similar, among old world populations, to the DNA of people anciently associated with the Altay Mountains area of central Asia. This conclusion from a genetic perspective confirms a large amount of archaeological, anthropological, and linguistic evidence that Native American peoples' ancestors migrated from Asia at the latest 16,500–13,000 years ago. (See Settlement of the Americas and Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas)." to " Native American peoples, and those from the Altay Mountains, share a common ancestor which is incorrect and not what the sources say. You changed the word 'state' which is neutral to 'claim' which is not, see WP:CLAIM. You added a statement that someone 'rebutted' an argument - a more neutral word is 'dispute' as 'rebutted' makes the article sound as it is taking sides. All of those edits added bias to the article. I'll change those and if you still think the article has problems, please take it to the talk page rather than revert me.

I removed some hype about an article by David G. Stewart, Jr., MD, but I'm not sure why this should be included at all. He's an orthopedic surgeon[4] with no qualifications to comment on works by anthropologists or geneticists. Dougweller (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Not only does the author have no qualifications, but the reviewers of a theology journal have none to adequately provide peer review for his conclusions, and are perhaps too POV to be trusted (do you think this BYU publication would have accepted a paper that concluded the opposite?). Likewise, 2006 is ancient history when it comes to molecular anthropology. All in all, I have my doubts that it represents a WP:RS for its scientific conclusions, and whether its inclusion int he article is consistent with WP:WEIGHT. (And that doesn't even consider his scholarly nihilism argument, that since doctors were wrong about a drug treatment, all science could be wrong about anything, so his pet theory may be right even though it flies in the face of scientific consensus - basically a recast Galileo argument.) We have seen it all before, a non-expert proponent of a fringe theory publishing outside of the scholarly journals of the field and explaining to the 'in crowd' that the experts don't know what they are talking about. Agricolae (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

LGT acronym surprising, not defined, and inconsistent with Limited Geography Model

The acronym "LGT" is first used in the article with no explanation of what it means. The term "Limited Geography Model" is used before "LGT" and the reader is left to wonder if LGT refers to the Limited Geography Model, whose acronym would presumably be LGM. Then later the term "Limited Geography Theory" is used and the reader can confidently conclude that they are all one and the same.

Since there is a Wikipedia article titled "Limited Geography Model", that lends weight to using that term consistently throughout and eliminating the use of "Limited Geography Theory". Then one of the following changes should be made:

1. eliminate use of an LGT or LGM acronym altogether
2. introduce the acronym in parenthesis immediately after the first use of the full term, and have it be "LGM"

Unjedai (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a need to use an acronym/initialism and given that the most common uses of LGM are for little green men, Last Glacial Maximum, and for a series of ICBMs, it's not all that helpful. Just use Limited Geography Model where needed. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Nature article

The following was contributed today to Book of Mormon, but was reverted as out of place:

Newer [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12736.html evidence] has shown a Genetic link between Native Americans and middle east peoples. In this study it is estimated that 14% to 38% of Native American ancestry may originate from the middle east.<ref>[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12736.html Nature 505,87–91(02 January 2014)doi:10.1038/nature12736]</ref>

My question is if the Nature article belongs in this WP article, as it's not currently found here. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 01:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Additional references for this are National Geographic and Smithsonian.com. Both of these reference the journal directly. It is relevant to the discussion and should be included. Dromidaon (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

So far as the study goes, "the study concludes that two distinct Old World populations led to the formation of the First American gene pool: one related to modern-day East Asians, and the other a Siberian Upper Palaeolithic population related to modern-day western Eurasians."

"The presence of a population related to western Eurasians further into northeast Eurasia provides a more likely explanation for the presence of non-East Asian cranial characteristics in the First Americans, rather than the Solutrean hypothesis that proposes an Atlantic route from Iberia. Read more at: [5]

Unless I'm missing something, there's no Mormon argument that there was movement through Siberia to North America. But that's completely irrelevant. The sources don't mention the subject of the article. Take a look at the sources we actually use in the article, they all seem to discuss the subject directly. The article isn't the place for actual argument about it, see WP:NOR. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not advocating or lobbying for it's inclusion; I'm just trying to see what the consensus is about it. If nothing else, this discussion may (hopefully) prevent tenacious editing over this issue, one way or the other. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 19:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This study says, quite literally, that the genetic marker from the "Middle East and Europe ... [with] no evidence of any relation to modern East Asians" (Nat Geo source) is found in 14% to 38% of Native American ancestry. Even though the study itself does not address genetics in the Book of Mormon, it is directly related to the research done by Thomas W. Murphy and Simon Southerton. Their research was based on available genetic markers. This study evolves this information. In like manner, most articles include information and sources that have a relation even though they are not necessarily a direct study on the subject. In this article the opening paragraph describes the work of Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, even though his research does not mention the subject of the article either. His work is related to only part of the subject: genetics. However, even though his research has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon, it is still related and relevant.

The study itself shares a relation to both genetics and the Book of Mormon, even if the Book of Mormon is never mentioned in it. The claim of the Book of Mormon is that some descendants of the Native American population originated from the Middle East. The claim of the study is that some descendants of the Native American population originated from what is now known as the Middle East and the surrounding areas. There is a relation, even if it is not explicitly declared. The study shows that the genetic marker that would be found in the descendants of Lehi would have already been in the American Indian population even if that original population had transfered over from Siberia. Lehi's genetics would be indistinguishable from those found in the study.

However, none of the articles mentioned indicate a Siberia to North America theory that I could find. As a matter of fact, the National Geographic article includes the comments of the co-author of the study on where this mixture may have taken place: "It could have been somewhere in Siberia or potentially in the New World." He indicates that he thinks it "more likely that it occurred in the Old World," but this is not definitive.

The study should be mentioned in the article, as it is related to the topic. Dromidaon (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not the way Wikipedia works. That would be fine in an essay or scholarly paper, but not here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 14:00, 31 October 2014

I'm saying that the nature article is worth mentioning in this page because of its relation to the subject. Not that we should should come to a conclusion that is not stated in the research paper itself. This would be WP:SYN.

If you still feel strongly about not including it directly, I can add the viewpoint of some Book of Mormon apologists to the paper under the "Response to the genetic challenge from Book of Mormon defenders" section. Perhaps that is the better compromise for this article. Dromidaon (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I have added the nature article and the response to defenders under the above discussed section. Hopefully it is an acceptable compromise to all involved. Dromidaon (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)