Here is my translation of the 10 tips:
- “Be a friend” = Pretend to like people so they will think you’re nice and they will want to know “why” you are nice. Then spring your religion on them, ’cause what else are friends for if not to deceptively pretend to like people so you can shove religion down their throat?
- “Ditch the lingo” = Pretend you are more like other Christians than you really are by learning to speak the way they do.
- “Stay on message” = Stay on the “milk” message – Mormons are nice and you’ll have a happier family if you join. Don’t discuss what Mormonism is really like or what Mormons actually believe: god lives on a planet near the star Kolob; Joseph Smith instituted polygamy so he could sex it up; the church owns dozens, if not hundreds, of for-profit subsidiaries, including malls and ranches; Mormons mistreat women, gays, and blacks; Native Americans are Jews, they just don’t know it and their DNA is hiding the evidence, etc.
- “Trust” = This is a repeat of #1. Basically, pretend to be trustworthy so you can use “friendship” as a tool to convert people. Sure, there is that idealistic notion that friends are people who just genuinely care about you because of who you are. Mormons don’t buy that. Friends are targets for conversion (or are automatically gained through holding membership in common). Friends are instruments and tools, not people.
- “Pray” = Fall prey to confirmation bias. When some completely random event occurs that allows you to try to force your religion on someone else, claim that is a prayer answered. Ignore the 10 trillion other random events that do not lend themselves to this opportunity. Ergo, prayer works.
- “Invite” = Ditto #1 and #4. Though, with this one, he is also throwing in the old, “Feel free to strain your “friend” relationships with awkward invitations to church.” Sure, you have to work with those people every day, but what’s wrong with a little workplace awkwardness in the pursuit of converting the world to Mormonism.
- “Plant seeds” = Ditto #1, #4, and #6. However, this one includes the notion of randomly throwing “seed” around your social network… All the better to annoy people in your social network.
- “Community Involvement” = I’m handing this one off to Jesus, one of my favorite mythical characters, “Watch out! Dont do your good deeds publicly, to be admired by others, for you will lose the reward from your Father in heaven. When you give to someone in need, dont do as the hypocrites doblowing trumpets in the synagogues and streets to call attention to their acts of charity! I tell you the truth, they have received all the reward they will ever get. But when you give to someone in need, dont let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. Give your gifts in private, and your Father, who sees everything, will reward you.” (Matthew 6.1-4). Ever heard of “Mormon Helping Hands“? (FYI, the link is a Google News search showing all the trumpeting of their good deeds in the media.)
- “Use humor” = What better way to get yourself into your friends’ good graces than to humorously mock THEIR religious views? Come on! This is brilliant stuff here.
- If you find yourself talking to a fellow Christian, you can try this line: “What are services like in… THE CHURCH OF SATAN?!?!” (1 Nephi 14:10)
- Or this zinger for a Jew: “How is that temple reconstruction going? We Mormons can’t wait until it’s rebuilt, so you can all weep and lament the fact that you killed Jesus!” (D&C 45:51-53)
- “Access the keys of heaven” = This one is just weird. It sounds like he’s recommending you pawn off the responsibility on your ward council. Perhaps the smartest suggestion of the bunch!
Is it just me, or do these suggestions seem both anachronistic and dishonest? Anachronistic because people just don’t do this crap anymore – religious ecumenism requires that people be tolerant of others’ religious views and not try to convert them. And dishonest because it is using deception to convert people.
Anyone else want to take a shot at translating the 10 tips of passe member missionary work?
Number one is a little tricky. I actually do think that many Mormons genuinely want to be friends with potential converts (generally). Many members that I worked with on the mission often would maintain some kind of relationship even after their non-mormon neighbors rejected their invites. I think when a Mormon stops being friends after the rejection, then it’s more due to social awkwardness than not caring to be that person’s friend.
However, I do agree that the genuineness is diluted when there’s a missionary motive.
I also think it has to do with *why* they became friends, and what the church wants the member to do with that.
As a TBM, I was friends with some non-mormons due to mutual interests, common goals, what-have-you. The church would like me to hit them up as potential converts, which makes things awkward later when they refuse.
I think the church also wants members to become friends (or “better” friends) with non-members in an effort to trick them into becoming members. When they refuse, the “friendship” falls apart as fast as a vendor/company relationship that ends. The mormon wasn’t really their friend, they were trying to sell them something.
I’m sure that, sometimes, the second situation can lead to actual friendships, but that’s not the main goal. And it doesn’t change the fact that the church doesn’t treat people like Children of God so much as employees (or worsecontractors).
Awesome.
I cringed when we heard my BIL speak after my nephew’s first ever sacrament talk (aww, i know. pure PR move on our part) He gave this whole schpeal on how you can work your friendships to bring them into teh gospel.
Even as an investigator I refused invitations from friends to “come over for dinner.” They thought I was stupid–I knew the mishies would be there. It was insulting, and that thought never went away. It’s not always about friending people so you can ambush them, sometimes it’s a bit of manipulation with current friends too.
I don’t know why the red flags weren’t going crazy on me then.
I’m going to play devil’s advocate and point out that most Mormons do genuinely believe that their friends’ lives will be better if the join the Church. Who wouldn’t want people they care about to be on the one and only Ultimately Awesome Path to the Celestial Kingdom? If you believe that you are Right and everyone else is Not Quite As Right, of course you want to share what you sincerely believe is better than what they have.
I don’t think most Mormons are looking at their friends as potential points for the Mormon Church. I think most of them really do want to share something that is important to them. I agree that it’s creepy and inappropriate, but most Mormons aren’t able to think in terms of “to each his/her own” when they’ve been told all their lives that they are the One Path to Happiness.
Leah… You are, of course, correct. Many Mormons are likely sincere about this. Inappropriate and sincere.
But the points in my post still hold in that “friend” means something different to Mormons than it does to, say, atheists. The friends I, an atheist, have are my friends because we care about each other, not because I want them to think like I do and am using my “friendship” to push them in that direction. I embrace them for not thinking like I do.
I suppose I’m a bit more cynical than you are, Leah. Throughout my experience it was all a matter of bringing people to the church. My PB said that I would bring many to the church. You hear it so often that it becomes a matter of pressure and perhaps obligation.
My LDS friends were fairly pushy when it came to certain things. They knew I was investigating, but they wanted me to meet the mishies justincase.
There’s something about having a few chips on the headstand for each person you’ve brought into the gospel. It’s was frustrating for me because I felt I needed to, that I couldn’t, and that I just didn’t really want to.
When I heard my BIL speak about getting his new friends to come to dinner while the missionaries were there because “hey, food” I wanted to pull my hair out.
I’ve never understood the concept, both in and out of the church. If it comes up, awesome. And it does sometimes. That’s how I initially became involved. But there’s a bit of unfeeling manipulation going on just so you can say you’ve been obedient and did that thing the scripture says so you can have tons of joy about it later. Felt it, heard it, saw it.
It just feels too self-centered, in my experience at least.
haha, forgive the “chips in the headstand” bit. I was going to go back and fix that, but then I thought I already had. But for clarity’s sake: you know, one mark for every lay.
Bad analogy, but I’m fried.
Leah, I have to disagree. Not that Mormons can’t make friends; I did, and others certainly have. I didn’t have many actual Mormon friends, that was more like a coworker relationship. But I digress.
“Who wouldnt want people they care about to be on the one and only Ultimately Awesome Path to the Celestial Kingdom?”
Mormons say this is what they want, but you’ll notice that most of them, even the most TBM, have to be reminded to do this. I think about it this way: if I go see an awesome movie, I want to tell people about it, especially friends of mine who I think would enjoy it.
Mormons, if their testimonies are to be believed, are routinely experiencing this kind of excitement and joy about the Church. Why do so few of them want to share it? Why do the few who DO share it do it so poorly?
Look at Hinckley’s TV interviews. He looks friendly, but does he look excited? Does he radiate the joy that comes from the chance to share something truly wonderful with the world?
Mormons get excited when they get out of church early on Sunday. They don’t get excited about going to church. I think that kind of says it all.
@ Goldarn – Nobody expects other people to be insulted or defensive if you tell them about a great movie you just saw, but everybody knows that for religious people, their faith is the most intimate part of who they are. To question that is to challenge their very identity. It’s common knowledge that religion and politics are controversial topics of conversation. I can certainly understand why people would be hesitant to share their faith as a Mormon, even if it truly is joyful and fulfilling for them.
# 3 – translation of the translation:
Make sure that when you describe your faith – that you don’t actually focus on the things that are most central to actually living in the faith. But instead, be sure to give the entirety of your description over to trivial side tangents that have nothing to do with how you actually live as a Mormon.
Only by doing this can you appease those ex-members who frankly are so far removed from the faith life that they once had, that they currently labor under the delusion that these sensational, odd, controversial, and often irrelevant tidbits are all there is to Mormonism.
Sorry, but we’ll define ourselves however we damn well please.
A woman who has gotten a divorce is under no obligation to ask her ex-spouse for a checklist of all the things he thinks she out to disclose about herself to every new guy she goes out with.
And I’m rather disappointed to see the old DNA chestnut surfacing here. I’d think you’d be utterly embarrassed to even be using this argument – it’s been so thoroughly discredited.
@Macha obviously I disagree. The movie analogy isn’t perfect, but it’s clear that even in situations where speaking of TSCC would be welcome are largely avoided, in general, by TBM Mormons.
Goldarn: That ‘coworker’ idea was incredibly apt. I really liked some of the people at church, just as I liked some people at jobs I’ve had. But I never see them anymore. Same relationship.
Seth: Wow — has Lamanite DNA been found? Please tell us more.
They talked about this article on Mormon Coffee and highlighted a couple of interesting additional points on suggestions #2 and #3. Specifically, Gary Lawrence suggests dropping Mormon jargon, and replacing it with words more familiar/palatable to Christians (not for anyone else). And in #3 the article states that “our central message” is
This suggests a very focused marketing strategy. My translation of the new slogan: “You already believe in Christianity, and we’re the real Christianity.” It looks like the plan is to sell the CoJCoL-dS as “Christianity+”.
I know that that has always been a big part of their marketing strategy, but perhaps with the direction Mormon culture has gone lately, they’re redoubling their efforts to attract [politically] conservative Christians (since the CoJCoL-dS has burned their bridges with everyone else).
But if they want to sell Mormonism as Christianity plus, the need to be clearer on what the plus is — since, otherwise, why leave your current Christian denomination for Mormonism? The one thing that Mormons will agree that they have (and everyone needs) is the priesthood authority to perform saving ordinances, including temple ordinances. [Mormons will also agree that they have additional scripture and revelation, but none of it appears to be critical for salvation/exaltation except the ordinances (and corresponding covenants).] But how to sell that to Christians without talking about “the Great Apostasy” to explain the inferiority of all other Christian denominations?
The word “Mormon” fails miserably at bringing to mind an image of the original Christian church.
The unique Mormon “plus” that everybody sees now is a GM management style, IBM fashion sense, and “Father Knows Best” theology.
Gary’s reformulated phrases might work better if the folks spouting them didn’t look exactly like Gary, but they do. “Original Christian” + “corporate attire” = belly laughs and 14 Tony nominations. Wake up, dude. It’s not just the words, it’s the wardrobe.
#3 – translation of the translation of the translation
Focus on the things that are “central” to how you actually live as a Mormon, like:
-Men are patriarchs and rule the home (per Proclamation on the Family)
-same-sex marriage should be opposed at all costs (to the tune of $20 million in donations by Mormons in California)
-Women have no real authority in the religion.
-Family is important, so long as everyone remains a member of the religion. If someone does decide to leave, then religion is more important and it’s okay to cut the apostate off.
-Marry young and have kids, not because it increases the odds of successful marriages but because it keeps people in the religion.
-Mormons spend hours and hours every week engaged in meetings, most of which are stultifyingly boring.
-Mormons don’t share the same notion of the Trinity as most of the rest of Christianity.
-Mormons don’t allow non-Mormon family to attend temple weddings, unlike most other religions.
Are those more central to the way Mormons live their lives, Seth?
#10 was overly grumpy.
But I don’t like being told what I believe.
In all fairness though, I don’t like being told how I’m supposed to portray my faith from the Correlation Committee any more than I like being told by profxm.
Daniel – of course “Lamanite” DNA has been found.
It’s largely Asiatic – just like what we’ve found.
Chanson, I don’t think anyone has been talking less about the “Great Apostasy” – at least, not if they are actually following the manuals.
profxm, funny thing about your #15 is – aside from the inaccurately negative tone – we ARE up front and open about all those things from day one.
You’d have to be an idiot to join this church without knowing that we oppose gay sex. Ditto on not noticing that the Priesthood is male-only. Likewise on the Trinity. Unless – like a lot of Protestants/Catholics/Orthodox, you don’t even know what the Nicene Trinity is in the first place (this is actually quite common, considering that the Nicene Trinity is an utterly incoherent concept). Likewise on non-members not getting into the temple.
In fact, just about all these bullet points come up in the first investigator discussions. So I don’t know what you are on, thinking that we’re hiding the ball about any of this.
As for the young marriages thing – I’m not seeing this as an emphasis in the LDS Church. Unless by “young” you mean age 25 (the normal age for educated LDS to get married these days, it seems).
First investigator discussion? Seth, are you forgetting that I was a missionary?
First investigator discussion: Mormons believe in god, in Jesus, and believe there was a great apostasy, leading to Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.
No where do: all male priesthood, temple exclusivity, opposition to same sex marriage, concept of god, etc. come up in the investigator discussions. I taught them for two years, just like you did. I remember the content. I specifically chose everyday things that ARE NOT taught to investigators.
Can an investigator find these if they search hard enough? Sure. But missionaries won’t bring them up.
Oh, and apparently you missed Monson’s address in Conference in which he told young men to get married. That, according to news reports, was the emphasis in the latest conference.
You’re being a little sneaky now profxm by limiting this to the first discussion.
Why would you cover that in the first discussion? That’s where you cover central and crucial stuff – the most crucial aspects of our faith. And I guarantee you that notions of who God is and our worship of Jesus Christ are far more central and important in defining our religion than Prop 8.
But I didn’t limit this to the first discussion. I was talking about all the discussions that you have ALWAYS been required to complete before baptism (as long as you and I have known the Church anyway). You can’t get in to this church without knowing we oppose gay sex – unless you are either mentally incompetent or weren’t listening to anything anyone was telling you.
Monson told men to get married. He didn’t tell them to do it at age 19.
And that’s because our nation is facing a crisis of failure-to-launch do-nothing males who aren’t even getting married by age 40 – let alone age 25. My sister is in her early 30s now, and she can’t get any of the single guys she hangs out with to act like a responsible adult. And her story is pretty typical these days.
I was just referring to one of Lawrence’s lingo-ditching recommendations:
I assume he is suggesting that people avoid mentioning the “Great Apostasy” to their Christian friends (perhaps because it offends them…?). But I’m not saying that Mormons do or should follow Lawrence’s suggestions.
To say “men changed” (instead of “apostasy”) to explain why “Christianity” needed to be “re-established” has the advantage that at least nobody will have any clue what you’re talking about. But it’s also a disadvantage. I think Gary Lawrence’s recommendations are foolish because you don’t convince people of a message by obscuring it.
I’m not big on blaming large-scale social trends on individual character flaws. I don’t think human nature changes much from generation to generation, so it’s more fruitful to try to analyze the underlying social, economic, and structural factors that cause these trends. It may well be that young people have a harder time (less opportunity, etc.) getting a foothold in a career than corresponding young people a generation ago. Just telling them to grow up won’t necessarily solve the problem.
Not everybody is interested in marriage. Some people are more interested in self-fulfillment than romantic relationships. And they’re happy. Demeaning people who are different from you, who make different choices than you, and assuming that those choices have to be bad by virtue of their difference, is juvenile and ignorant.
I’m 23 and my first wedding anniversary is next month. I’m happy. But that doesn’t mean I don’t think people can’t be happy being middle-aged and single, or middle-aged and in a non-marital committed relationship, or middle-aged and newly married. Marriage has been demonstrated to be beneficial to health and happiness, but to exhort people to do it as soon as possible, and imply that any faithful member will do, is a recipe for a very bad marriage. Because love is what makes married people happy, not marriage.
What this boils down to is that the general authorities’ talks in conference about marriage said you can’t be happy unless you’re in a procreative hetero marriage, preferably before age 30.
that doesnt mean I dont think people *can* be happy
Oh man. In the early ’00s I was at a joint priesthood/rs meeting in which the bishop relayed the parable about the 1 and 99 sheep and basically told us to ditch our friends who were not receptive to hearing the gospel to make more time to find those who were. Our ward mission leader then got up and said since there were over 300K people in our city, there were at least 3K “lost” and ready to be found and baptized at that moment.
I can’t recall if this directive was “revealed” to the bishop or if it came from the stake president (who was a prone to inane ideas). In either case, the message of the parable was twisted and it was not received well. Some TBMs actually voiced discomfort in the meeting. It didn’t go anywhere.
That’s the usual Mormon way of killing a dumb idea.
Just passive-aggressive resistance it to death.
For as lockstep and conformist as Mormons superficially appear, it can be REALLY hard to get them to do anything they don’t really want to do.
Rarely, if ever, does the church have one “lead by their own example.” It’s all about presenting a facade to draw others in, and not so much about living a good life for yourself. If you were truly happy and living well (according to the church’s ideals), then people would flock to you for the answers. Instead, you’re tasked with trying to convince others you have it so well when you yourself fall short of the mark.
@epalmatier: That also allows TSCC to preach about people not living up to the standards and setting a good example, which hurts people “who might join the church except for your bad example.” Never forget the potential of a teaching/preaching to instill guilt in a member, which can only be relieved by rededicating yourself to wearing white shirts, paying tithing, and all the lesser commandments.
Right Goldarn, and of course enlightened ex-Mormons NEVER use guilt to try and manipulate the sort of responses they want, right?
Right.
Golly, Seth, and here I thought that Mormons were supposed to be better than ex-mormons, not use ex-mormons’ behavior as an excuse. The real question is, should the True Church of Jesus Christ on the Earth use cheap manipulative tactics to get what it wants?
Oh, BTW, watch that anger! Being angry is the exclusive province of ex-mormons. 🙂
The only time I’ll get arrogant with you is when I think your argument is stupid. Otherwise I don’t make claims about who is morally superior on Internet debates. Such arguments always amount to ad hominem if you can’t back them up – which people on both sides usually can’t.
And there is a difference between “anger” and eyerolling sarcasm.
Seth, you’re a hoot! Don’t ever change.
Seth…so you have admitted that Asiatic DNA was found in the American Indian. No DNA for “Hewbrews”…what part of the lie of Joseph’smyth do you like so much that you’ll ignore this one?
kacky, even if everything in the text of the Book of Mormon happened exactly the way it says it happened, we would not expect to find any “Hebrew DNA” among modern American Indians.
So yes, we have found “Lamanite DNA.” And it has a common Asiatic ancestor. But that doesn’t rule out a small influx of Hebrew DNA at some point in the population history that was swallowed up and quickly disappeared.
@ SethR…do you have a degree in the science of DNA, Seth? I’m thinking not…just regurgitating FAIR/FARMS hocus pocus?
That’s great news. We’ve been looking for a respectable Lamanite Placement Program for our kids. They speak Mandarin, not Navajo, but if it’s all the same to y’all, pls note that we prefer a nice family in Tempe. Thanks!
Oh, kacky,
And I’m just certain that whatever cheap two bit hack you got your information from is just brimming with academic competence.
Funny thing about anti-Mormon sources – they always demand to see the academic credentials of the Mormon sources, but never ask to see the credentials of the idiots on RfM or exMormon.org.
Even though such places tend to be intellectual dunghills of barely literate angry people.
I can produce academic credentials of where I got my sources, as it so happens. But I doubt you’d accept it anyway – because it’s a (gasp) MORMON source.
As if that constituted a valid argument against an academic position – but… such is the brain power of a lot of the ex-Mormon venues out there.
Mormon positions always have to have academic backing behind them. Whereas ex-Mormon positions?
Well….
For those, all you have to do is shout – REALLY LOUD.
Is it just me or is Seth R. venting in a venue that would be more than happy to see him contribute a post laying it all out in plain detail for the rest of us dummies?
In any case, what’s the difference between RfM and exMormon.org? Aren’t they one and the same?
Chino @ 36:
Yes, this really is the point. Whether it’s Mormons insisting that natives are anciently “Hebrew,” or whether it’s geneticists insisting they’re anciently “Asiatic,” the damage has been done and is still being done.
Sure, damage has been done Alan.
Just not to the Book of Mormon, which is frankly all I care about.
I’m a Mormon apologist – not an apologist for the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And I never have been.
Chino, I always thought they were different, but I haven’t looked to closely.
You are cute, Seth. I’d love your source, but I’m pretty sure it’s either from FAIR or FARMS, right? Stuff even the church won’t back up? They just let them do the talking FOR them, and then they don’t really have to get caught taking a stand.
Have you heard of a Mormon geneticist named Simon Southerton, Seth? He’s got a fantastic book explaining how genetics work and why the “Lamanites” have no Jewish DNA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Southerton What about all the non-Mormon scientists who’ve got no skin in the game, Seth, and STILL come up with NADA. But because it doesn’t prove your myth, you say they are all liars and heretics of the church?
You are free to believe in your myth/cult, Seth, but you don’t get to lie about it at the same time. Well you can lie, of course, but you become a laughing stock with zero intellectual credit .
p.s. what *exactly* is Lamanite DNA, Seth?
Just because one can conjure a migration route from Israel through Asia to the Americas doesn’t alleviate the damage in terms of overwriting other people’s history. That’s what I meant by damage, and why I think the BoM’s credibility is shot.
Gotta love these anti-corporate Mormon apologists. 😉 Anyway, I’ve been through this spiel with BCC before I was banned for it, but here it is again: I have a foster sister named Lena and a foster brother named Ravis. Both Navajo. They didn’t just magically arrive in our home one day. And they count for a helluva lot more than your precious BOM apologetics.
As far as I know, “RfM” is simply the name of the principal forum of exmormon.org.
Seth — It looks like there’s further demand for a post from you. I don’t expect you to be prepared off-the-cuff for the topic requested @38, but if you’re ready with the guest post we discussed, I think now is as good as ever. 😉
At the end of the day, this is what sucks about the Mormon character … you refuse to own anything that matters. Keep pushing me and I’m gonna post that Helen Whitney clip for the umpteenth time, just for kicks. Own it!!
Too late, here it goes:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/11/101123-native-american-indian-vikings-iceland-genetic-dna-science-europe/
A tiny drop of Native American DNA has been found in Icelanders.
Syrian (and other roman-times) DNA has been found among the inhabitants of the Liddesdale border region near Hadrian’s Wall in England. Syrian archers were stationed there just under 2000 years ago. http://www.oocities.org/teamliddelldna/dnaresults.htm
Seth’s DNA studies are out-of-date. New tests are being run on regular dna–it persists.
Actually Kacky, I’m glad you brought Southerton up – because he actually personally admitted that a limited geography model for the Book of Mormon kills his entire argument. In recent years, he’s been reduced to lame declarations about how past Mormons believed in a continent-wide model. But suffice it to say, the wind has been taken out of his sails recently – by his own admission.
So how’s that for a source for you Kacky – Simon Southerton himself.
agnes, I fail to see how anything you’ve referenced really impacts my argument whatsoever.
Document that, Seth. Give me a link to where Simon says all his work is lie….
I never claimed he said all his work was a lie Kacky.
Take a reading comprehension class and try that comment again.
“he actually personally admitted that a limited geography model for the Book of Mormon kills his entire argument”
His ENTIRE argument. So, yes, not every bit of work or research or study he EVER did in his WHOLE life is wrong, just his ENTIRE ARGUMENT.
But you don’t have a link, because you are a liar.
Even if Southerton DID say that, it obfuscates the larger point: the whole point of the LGM is to turn the Book of Mormon into an untestable hypothesis. By construction, the LGM makes it impossible for any evidence to falsify the BOM.
If Southerton admits that his DNA argument can’t falsify an LGM, he isn’t saying very much; he’s just admitting to a tautology.
You can find Southerton’s remarks here:
http://www.irr.org/mit/southerton-response.html
It’s under question #7:
“In 600 BC there were probably several million American Indians living in the Americas. If a small group of Israelites, say less than thirty, entered such a massive native population, it would be very hard to detect their genes today. However, such a scenario does not square with what the Book of Mormon plainly states and with what the prophets have taught for 175 years.”
This basically amounts to an admission that IF you accept the limited geography model of the Book of Mormon and the arguments of modern Mormon apologists, then it would be “very hard” to detect any Israelite DNA today. Notice how in the second sentence he shifts his argument to what the text of the Book of Mormon says.
But at this point, Southerton has ceased making a scientific argument, and is now making an argument of Book of Mormon textual analysis. This is a field where he is out of his depth, and Mormon scholars are more than capable of refuting his assertion that the Book of Mormon “plainly states” a continent-wide sole-ancestry model.
I just want to point out the shift that has gone on here in this particular criticism. At first the argument was:
1. Oh wow! We’ve found proof that the Book of Mormon is refuted by DNA evidence.
Then the easy Mormon apologist refutations came in and now the argument has shifted to:
2. Well, maybe it doesn’t refute the Book of Mormon – but it refutes the reading that many Mormons had of the Book of Mormon.
I think the lameness of that shift is pretty self-evident. How the mighty have fallen.
Interestingly, this quote from Southerton used to be featured on Signature Books website, but Southerton had it removed.
Gee… wonder why he did that….
Julian, I’m not going to apologize for the Book of Mormon being an “untestable hypothesis.” That’s what Mormons have been saying for centuries.
As far as I’m concerned, that’s your problem, not mine.
Oh, another quote from Southerton over at the RfM boards where he goes by Simon of Oz:
In case anyone from FAIR is unclear I will repeat what I wrote four years ago
IF A SMALL GROUP OF ISRAELITES ENTERED SUCH A MASSIVE NATIVE POPULATION (SEVERAL MILLIONS) IT WOULD BE VERY, VERY HARD TO DETECT THEIR GENES.
Now that FAIR has finally conceded that American Indian DNA is essentially all derived from Asia, I also agree with them that the debate should be about the theology. It is great that we are agreeing about so much. But theres more. I also share the apologists frustration that most Mormons pay not the slightest notice of them, instead FAIR seems to help many who are struggling to make up their minds to leave. If I had my wish, FAIR and FARMS apologists would be given the opportunity to educate the masses in the church about how mistaken people have been about the Book of Mormon narrative. I would love to hear the Limited or Vanishing Geography taught in Institute and seminary. Mormons need to hear the new interpretations of the Book of Mormon on offer from the churchs unofficial apologists in order to immunize them against seeing things in the text that just aren’t there. ”
Archived by RfM here:
http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon534.htm
Again notice how he has conceded that the debate is no longer about the science, but about the THEOLOGY.
Although I think the Book of Mormon is fiction, I think Seth’s argument is essentially correct. DNA evidence refutes the “hemispheric model” (i.e., what every Mormon believed until the 1930s and what most Mormons believe today). It doesn’t necessarily refute the “limited geography model,” it just provides zero evidence to support it. In that, it’s just like pretty much everything we know about the history, archaeology, and anthropology of the Americas.
I wouldn’t say that every Mormon today believes it. Even as a kid in the 1980s, I was learning some distinctly “limited” models for the Book of Mormon. And this was in rural Southern Utah.
The only reason there is an LGM is because apologists (and, by extension, LDS Church leaders) got tired of trying to support the hemispheric model against ever increasing evidence against it.
The current argument is essentially as follows:
“There was such an overwhelming number of native peoples already here that any evidence of an ancient Israelite migration is swallowed up by the native culture and biology. Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence that can prove the BoM false, and we can keep promulgating our non-scientific evidence such as chiasmus. And don’t forget, if you feel good when you pray then it must be true.”
I think a limited geography model was first proposed as far back as the 1930s. So no, certainly not every (believing) Mormon believes in the hemispheric model. But my impression (and of course that’s all it is) is that most (believers) still believe in it. I think many Mormons have never (or barely) heard of the limited geography model.
Mormon scholars have been arguing a limited geography for well over half a century – mostly based on a careful reading of the “war chapters” in Alma.
To claim that these models were invented to answer the recent DNA arguments is just silly.
And even if they were – so what? Is that supposed to be an invalidation of the argument or something?
Kari,
Yeah. Science advances and religion retreats. Happens all the time.
Oh, “limited geography” definitely predates DNA evidence. But when not viewed through a lens of faith, what you call “careful reading” looks an awful lot like “desperate retreat in the face of mounting evidence.”
I look at it as an advance.
But you’ve picked your own brand of confirmation bias. And I’m sure you feel I’ve picked mine.
So which is it, Seth? Either Joseph’smyth was a PROPHET with the Golden Plates revealed to him and he translated them correctly…from an ANCIENT people that are THE ancestors of the American Indian, or he’s a liar. A man, and MANY men after him said exactly that Seth, testified to it, in fact. Our ENTIRE religion is based on THAT FACT! – That Hebrews migrated here and that the land was UNINHABITED! So said Joseph’smyth. Remember, God told him so.
You are a fool my friend. There is zero evidence of millions of people, let alone grains, animals and metals (shields and chariots, you keep ignoring), etc., in the time of the B of M and you know it.
Please feel free to keep your head inserted in your nether region, though. You are clearly desperately invested in this fantasy being true. I honestly want you to be happy, Seth. If you need to believe in this, go with god. Let’s just not pretend Joseph said the land was already inhabited by millions of Native Americans…that’s a lie.
The new DNA studies that use the whole genome, more or less, rather than relying on special male or female DNA can detect even a tiny drop of outside DNA. The new DNA techniques can even determine when, historically, the DNA entered the population. See the Icelandic example I posted earlier–it looks like a single Native American from somewhere prior to 1400 AD interbred with the Icelandic population. Not too shabby. Also see the Syrian DNA (it entered the population about 1800 years ago) found amongst English populations living along Hadrian’s wall. If there’s Near Eastern DNA (like the Syrian stuff) it would be found. It hasn’t.
agnes,
The Icelandic DNA discussed appears to be mitochondrial DNA, which can disappear from a population if a maternal lineage comes to an end. (I didn’t look at the site about Syrian DNA, because Norton Anti-Virus reports it as unsafe.)
Kacky, honestly, from your tone, I’m quite sure you don’t give a damn about me one way or the other.
And if you think the entire Mormon religion is founded on the continent being uninhabited…
Well, I’ll let the sheer stupidity and ignorance of that statement speak for itself.
Sure. I mean, it’s pretty much a toss-up between the thousands of data points that confirm conventional history, archeology, anthropology, biology, etc., and the two or three data points found by apologists that don’t disconfirm the Book of Mormon. What explanation other than “confirmation bias” could possibly explain my acceptance of the former over the latter?
Sure Kuri, if you think all those thousands of data points actually offer a competing narrative to the Book of Mormon.
The Book of Mormon isn’t competition, it’s simply irrelevant.
Besides, I think it’s rather artificial to put the Book of Mormon on one side, and line up against it, this vague and uselessly massive category called “conventional history” and act as if the two were somehow opposed to each other.
Oh. I was forgetting that they only used to be opposed to each other. But now Book of Mormon scholarship has advanced to the point where the Book of Mormon’s irrelevance to any known history is actually a virtue.
Really, Seth? You can’t recall a single talk from a past Prophet who stated what I did? You’ve wiped the history clear, just like FAIR/FARMS has? BRILLIANT!
kackyful — You’ve presented some good arguments that I’m glad we’re discussing. I’d like to be sure you’re aware of our commenting policy (on our welcome page). In a nutshell, please try to keep your criticism civil and constructive. I’m sure you can make your argument without calling anyone a fool.
Of course I can recall such talks Kacky.
When did I ever imply there weren’t any?
Thx, Chanson, I’ll remember that (this is my first time here, I neglected to read that, sorry).
Ok Seth, I’ll try to help you out here, since you appear to be trapped into a corner now and are trying to shut the convo down, it appears. What part of the land being uninhabited, and that Lehi and his family created the American Indian (You do remember a little parable in there about Laman and Lemuel, right?), known to us as Lamanites, do you question?
1. That Joseph’smyth was told by God it was true, and *none* of us believe the story he told us anymore, (including you).
or
2. Joseph’smyth was a liar, made it all up (with some help), for profit, and women? And all the current leaders and/or apologists of the church (FAIR/FARMS) are continuing to make things up to save face, due to lack of evidence.
p.s. I’m still waiting to hear from you what “Lamanite DNA” is.
The reading I have of the Book of Mormon (which I consider to be fully consistent with the text), is that Lehi’s group landed in the New World around 600 BC and found the land already occupied with indigenous people. Both Nephi’s faction, and Laman’s faction then mixed in with those natives and managed to rise to positions of – basically royalty.
This is consistent with the few historical records we have of Mesoamerican civilizations – where the records that were kept were usually the records of noble bloodlines. the Book of Mormon appears to be a record of the royal lineage of Nephi and Laman.
So my view is that within a few generations, possibly by the Book of Alma, there was no remaining Hebrew genetic trace that we could have spotted – had we been there with modern genetic testing capability.
So lets pretend we found a lost record that allowed us to identify a direct descendant of Laman alive today – what would his or her DNA look like?
It would have the common ASIATIC ancestor that all Native Americans have. Because that’s exactly the DNA pool that Laman’s group mixed in with.
Julian hit the nail on the head. The Book of Mormon, as things stand, IS non-falsifiable. There’s no way to even detect the sort of genetic data that would prove it true or false.
Lamanite DNA is no different than common Asiatic-descended DNA found among modern Native Americans. That’s been my entire argument ever since I started responding to you.
Incidentally, Joseph Smith made pronouncements on the scope of the geography of the Book of Mormon on occasion. But these pronouncements tended to change as he learned new information. Nor do I believe he was claiming a divine source for these declarations other than his own best assumptions based on what he knew of the text.
As such, I do not really feel bound by what he said here. Being a prophet doesn’t make a person infallible – it doesn’t render every pronouncement he ever makes perfect. Mormonism has no doctrine of prophetic infallibility.
Do many members assume that the prophet is infallible? Sure they do.
And they are dead wrong.
Part of the responsibility of every Mormon is to thoughtfully and prayerfully study the words of our leaders in light of what we know and decide for ourselves if they are true. It always has been. It’s not my fault that a lot of people over at RfM seem to have conveniently forgotten that.
If they were basically royalty, then one would expect them to have a lot of successful offspring spread through the population over the generations. That’s a scenario where population geneticists would expect to find some sort of clear genetic commonalities with Hebrews. In-mixed sub-populations’ genes don’t simply become so diluted that they’re undetectable especially if the sub-population is highly successful.
If you argue that Lehi’s group was extremely isolated (and perhaps had some sort of taboo about intermarriage with the neighboring populations), that’s the scenario that’s not falsifiable. But with that scenario, you run into problems with the unrealistically rapid population growth (as calculated by the figures given in the Book of Mormon of people killed in various battles).
I don’t think being a part of the royal elite automatically meant a large enough number of offspring to make much difference – at least not enough to create a big enough drop in the bucket to spot. Especially not after hundreds of years before you even hit the Book of Mosiah.
As for the warfare numbers, that’s part of the reason I feel mixing with the locals is how it must have played out.
However, I would urge caution on the battlefield numbers. It is common practice in almost all ancient military records to exaggerate the numbers of men involved in major battles. The Romans did it, the Assyrians did it, the Saracens did it, etc. I think it’s only reasonable to assume that Moroni did it as well.
A direct male-to-male descendant of Lehi would have Lehi’s Middle Eastern Y-chromosome DNA. A direct female-to-female descendant of Sariah would have her Middle Eastern mitochondrial DNA. The only way the Middle Eastern DNA would disappeared would be if at least one entire generation of Lehi’s male descendants had no sons and at least one generation of Sariah’s female descendants had no daughters.
That’s not impossible, so I agree that it’s not falsifiable. But your “royalty” scenario actually makes it much less likely. As chanson noted, the more prominent Lehi’s descendants were (and the more generations of descendants he had), the less likely their DNA would have disappeared. (Especially since there were some polygamists in the Book of Mormon, and extra wives are often a perk of royalty.) If your Book of Mormon scenario had actually happened, a sot of Genghis Khan effect in the Americas would be unsurprising.
You’re cheating Kuri.
I didn’t say a “direct male-to-male descent” or “female-to-female descent.”
I’m more careful than that in these kind of arguments.
Incidentally, I believe that some Hebrew genetic traces have been found in South America, but that these are (probably correctly) attributed to European influxes into the population since the Spaniards arrived.
But it does bring up the question – even if we did find Israelite genetic traces – how would you distinguish them from the stuff brought over by European colonization?
Seth,
It’s not “cheating.” That’s how DNA lines are traced. The direct male line of a Middle Eastern male would have have Middle Eastern Y-chromosome DNA. The direct female line of a Middle Eastern female would have Middle Eastern mDNA. The fact that same-sex lines can terminate while still leaving opposite-sex descendants is the only reason that (limited geography models of) the Book of Mormon can’t be truly falsified by DNA.
Possibly there would be slight but meaningful differences between Spanish-Jewish DNA and Middle Eastern Jewish DNA, but maybe not. I don’t know.
Anyway, to me this is one more case where something (an American “Genghis Khan effect,” even on a small scale) could provide strong evidence for the Book of Mormon but doesn’t. Absence of evidence isn’t necessarily evidence of absence, but there’s a large cumulative effect when it comes to the Book of Mormon.
There really is only a large cumulative effect if you assume a continent-wide model.
Also, sorry about the word “cheating” (even though it was used more humorously than aggressively). That would be one way to track the DNA – if such a direct ancestral line was involved.
It’s almost a “God of the gaps” scenario. The more we learn about the pre-Columbian history of the Americas, the smaller and less significant to that history the Book of Mormon must be made in order to survive. It’s an interesting mindset that can look at that process and see it as simply a movement towards more accurate understanding of the book.
No worries. But such lines would be involved if the hemispheric model were accurate. Thus, I’d say it’s fair to consider it disproved. In limited geography models, the fewer descendants Lehi and company had and the less prominent they were, the more plausible the disappearance of their DNA. So making them into royalty is a step in the wrong direction as far as explaining that away is concerned.
You can view this as a “retreat” if you want Kuri.
I don’t view it as a retreat at all. I view it as an advance – a more accurate picture of what the Book of Mormon is really telling us.
Again, even as royalty Nephi’s line wouldn’t have been sufficient to create a big enough footprint. The only place royal lineage would have been sufficient to create a big footprint would be in the historic records – which thanks to the efforts of Joseph Smith, we have.
The only way for Chanson’s point to hold water here would be if Nephi had as many concubines as Solomon, and had children with all of them (which I very much doubt even Solomon managed).
Also keep in mind, we’re merely arriving at the conclusion the TEXT of the Book of Mormon leads us to in the first place. Mormon scholars were concluding a limited geography simply from reading the book of Alma carefully long before DNA was even a question.
So to paint this as a series of retreats in the face of science doesn’t fit at all – even though I know such smug and triumphalist narratives are popular with online atheists these days. But this really is a very self-serving argument on your part Kuri.
Wait, what? So the Nephites now barely made offspring? And the couple they did spring forth, married the indigenous people, and THAT is how we got Lamen and Lemuel=brown people? Wow, Seth, I gots to hand it to you…this is some tricky tricky math/doctrine, one many are clearly still buying…but tricky. We are to ignore, Joseph’smyth’s true teachings, and make it a bigger myth…(wink), Gotcha!
Like I said, it’s an interesting mindset.
No, it’s quite easy for DNA lines to be preserved for hundreds of years. Even one Middle Easterner could leave evidence. All it takes is one unbroken father-to-son or mother-to-daughter line. In the National Geographic piece that agnes linked to, they found 80 Icelanders who were all descended from perhaps only one Indian woman who was brought to Iceland 1000 years ago.
And we also have the example of the Lemba people in South Africa, who look just like their neighbors and speak the same languages, but many of whose men carry Jewish genetic markers.
So DNA preservation can — not necessarily will, but can — happen. And lines with power and prestige are where preservation and spread are most likely to happen. Besides Genghis Khan, there are other ancient royal lines with tens or even hundreds of thousands of descendants. If the sons of Lehi ever existed, a similar result seems quite plausible.
My understanding is that mitochondrial DNA, which follows the mother’s line and changes very slowly, would be detectable. Since we don’t find any Hebrew mDNA in the Americas, apologists would have to argue that the Lehites didn’t have that many girls, and all their males failed to reproduce. A very unlikely scenario.
But okay. My question is: What is a Lamanite? Can we point to anyone and say ‘them’? If not, then the Book of Mormon is suddenly without one of its purposes: to bring the Lamanites to a knowledge of God, and to let them know that they have not been cast off. Oops.
Kuri, in the Iceland example, they got lucky – plain and simple. There’s a reason this kind of stuff is newsworthy. Because it’s a rare and wonderful find. Getting an unbroken female-to-female line over several centuries isn’t half as easy as you seem to think it is (or male).
Daniel, just because we don’t have the genetic means of tracing Hebrew DNA to modern Native Americans doesn’t mean they don’t have a Hebrew somewhere back there in the mix.
Seriously, it’s like you aren’t even paying attention to the argument at all.
Kacky, I’m not going to apologize for making your attempts to feel good about leaving the LDS Church easier for you.
Life’s tough all over.
Seth,
Every woman comes from a unbroken female-to-female mtDNA line, and every man from an unbroken Y-chromosome DNA line. The only question is whose line.
It’s not so rare at all to find “outside” lines. It’s happened many times. Just that I’m aware of offhand, old African, Viking, Roman, and Middle Eastern DNA lines been found in the UK. There’s the Native American line in Iceland. There’s the Lemba.
So Lehi and company could easily have left widespread DNA traces in modern populations even if the Book of Mormon only took place in a smallish area. This is especially true if they were very high-status people, “royalty” as you put it. Again, that this didn’t happen proves nothing. It’s just another case of something that could have been strong evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon but doesn’t exist.
Sure every woman comes from an “unbroken” mtDNA line, and every man comes from an “unbroken” Y-chromosome line.
It’s just in a HUGE amount of cases, the “unbroken” line only extends back two or three generations at most. So your observation contributes nothing to what I just said and merely obscures the issue.
Getting a mtDNA find that goes back as far as the Iceland case is basically “genetic gold.” A rare and wonderful find. The more generations are involved, the more chances there are for one of the generations to have no male offspring, or no female offspring, or no offspring at all.
Only if there are a huge amount of cases of women with grandmothers but no great-grandmothers. Do you know of any women like that?
Yes Kuri, that was a mistake.
But do you get what I’m saying here?
Yes Seth, we all get what you are saying. It must be true, it must be true, it must be true…
I was talking to Kuri, Kacky.
I’m not really all that interested in what your opinion is at the moment. My responses to you were mainly because some of your comments raised issues worth elaborating on. It was more for the benefit of others. Don’t flatter yourself that I ever considered a debate with you even worth winning. Your good opinion is the least of my concerns on this forum.
I get it, but it’s wrong. The more generations involved, the less likely a DNA line is to die out. Lehi had six sons in the Book of Mormon, so his line increased sixfold in one generation. If they averaged 2 sons each, the next generation had 12 times as good a chance of passing on Lehi’s Y-chromosome DNA. Same average for the next generation and it’s 24 times. Repeat again and it’s 48 times. And so on.
Of course, population growth isn’t necessarily that regular, and the process can reverse itself if each generation averages less than one son. But high-status families historically were generally more likely to have large numbers of surviving children, which is why in extreme cases we see the Genghis Khan or Niall effect.
So if the Book of Mormon is a true history, it wouldn’t be at all surprising to find Lehi’s Y-chromosome DNA in the Americas. It wouldn’t necessarily be there, but it would be unsurprising.
Wait…so you’re saying that even though there’s no proof [yet] of Hebrew DNA in the mix, and that even when/if this proof emerges it’s likely to be to a limited population, that it’s still appropriate to call all indigenous cultures of the Americas “Lamanites”?
Oh, don’t worry, Seth, I’m not flattered. I’m just sitting here w/ popcorn watching your desperation. Kuri/Chanson and a few others are offering you a lifeline here to just simply say “hey, I don’t know, I just need to believe in it”, but you keep digging a deeper hole for yourself, and making bigger claims of “what if’s” that are simply fun to watch.
Alan,
The two types of DNA (Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA) that we can trace easily today are tracked beyond a couple of generations only through same-sex lineages, so a person can descend from someone without it showing in their traceable DNA.
For example, even though my daughters descend from my mother, they don’t carry her (presumably) European mitochondrial DNA. They carry their mother’s (presumably) Asian mtDNA. If they have sons, even though they’re my descendants, those boys will carry their fathers’ Y-chromosome DNA, not mine.
So if, as is the case in “limited geography models” of the Book of Mormon, Lehi and company entered already populated American continents, it would be theoretically possible for Lehi to leave many descendants but no traceable DNA. If, on the other hand, Lehi and company were the “principal ancestors” of the native American populations, their traceable DNA should be all over the place.
Thanks for the summary, Kuri.
And what about the lack of technological evidence? Or animals and plants being in places they wouldn’t have been? Or the fact that even if there was an Israel->Asia->Americas migration route that the population’s language wouldn’t have been “reformed Egyptian” by the time they got to wherever?
The BoM screams 19th century American exceptionalism. The book was Smith’s attempt to justify why it was okay to build a “second creation” in the West and displace people already living there. Mormons felt they knew the history and future of the indigenous peoples better than they knew themselves.
The problem with the BoM is the idea of God knowing that Europeans would wipe out indigenous cultures so He decided to give the gospel to a white man to keep it safe and to help it spread worldwide (forgetting to mention the evils of colonialism, instead praising the Constitution). In hindsight, it makes more sense to say Smith and the BoM fall in line with 19th century American ideas about racial destiny, politics, economics, etc.
It was easy for early Mormons to label indigenous people “Lamanites”: they were darker, and the BoM explained why. It became harder to maintain this once a great number of the Church’s membership was not white and from Central or South America, and people had to take seriously complex demography and racism.
Arguing that Lamanites today are now understood as among the ancestors of native peoples as opposed to being their “principle ancestors” is beside the point. There’s a longer history of settler colonialism, and the BoM’s fall into irrelevance is simply a result of its being born from an essential immoralism. Seth argues that the “limited geography model” was born from the text itself, which is true, because Smith’s imagination limits the text to nowheresville.
Alan, do your really want me to go into every last one of those topics right now? I already figured we were threadjacking with the DNA thing as it was.
As for mtDNA and Y-Chromosome markers that are traceable…. let’s just use female mtDNA as an example. Every time a woman doesn’t have a female child, that female’s particular mtDNA marker is lost.
This means that – over time – mtDNA lines in a given population are constantly being whittled down. As long as the ancestral mtDNA your looking for didn’t come from too large of a percentage of the ancestral gene source material, the natural elimination process should be fairly rapid. Each generation will bring the loss of more continuous lines.
Of course, if the target genetic signature at one point accounted for 100% of genetic source material, you would be able to trace this. Even if the target accounted for the majority of the source material it would still be highly likely.
At this point, the only real dispute between me and Kuri outstanding is how rapid the process of natural elimination of mtDNA lines is (or Y-chromosome lines). I have reason to believe it’s a fairly rapid process and 2600 years is more than enough time to make the job nigh impossible. I’ve got an interesting study on this I remember reading about, but I’m trying to track it down.
There are obviously a lot of reasons not to believe that the Book of Mormon is what the church claims it is. I think the DNA evidence is probably more in the category of “Things that could have been strong evidence in the book’s favor but aren’t” rather than “Things that are strong evidence against the book.” (Although it is strong evidence against the popular traditional “hemispheric” interpretation of the book.)
Agreed.
Y-chromosome DNA and mtDNA are especially interesting because they allow us to examine specifically male and specifically female migrations. But they’re not the only DNA that’s used when studying the genetic distance between two populations.
Years ago, I read Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza‘ Genes, Peoples, and Languages, but unfortunately I lost the book during one move or another. I’ve been kind of staying out of this because I don’t want to make a mistake (not having my reference handy), but now I’ve decided to repurchase and re-read this book (and perhaps some of Cavalli-Sforza’s other books). The study of genes and human migrations is fascinating — for reasons that have nothing to do with the falsifiability of the BoM.