Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 1989–2011 Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 1989–2011
Volume 22 Number 1 Article 6
2010
Often in Error, Selcom in Doubt: Rod Meldrum and Book of Often in Error, Selcom in Doubt: Rod Meldrum and Book of
Mormon DNA Mormon DNA
Gregory L. Smith
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/msr
BYU ScholarsArchive Citation BYU ScholarsArchive Citation
Smith, Gregory L. (2010) "Often in Error, Selcom in Doubt: Rod Meldrum and Book of Mormon DNA,"
Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 1989–2011
: Vol. 22 : No. 1 , Article 6.
Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/msr/vol22/iss1/6
This Book of Mormon is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has
been accepted for inclusion in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 1989–2011 by an authorized editor of BYU
ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected].
Often in Error, Seldom in Doubt: Rod Meldrum and
Book of Mormon DNA
Gregory L. Smith
FARMS Review 22/1 (2010): 17–161.
1550-3194 (print), 2156-8049 (online)
Review of Rediscovering the Book of Mormon Remnant
through DNA (2009), by Rod L. Meldrum.
Title
Author(s)
Reference
ISSN
Abstract
O E, S D:
R M B M DNA
Gregory L. Smith
Review of Rod L. Meldrum. Rediscovering the Book of Mormon Remnant through DNA.
Honeoye Falls, NY: Digital Legend Press, 2009. viii + 169 pp., no index. $19.95.
is isn’t right. is isn’t even wrong.¹
Physicist Wolfgang Pauli
Introduction
R
od Meldrum has, he believes, found compelling scientific
evidence for the Book of Mormon. Rediscovering the Book of
Mormon Remnant through DNA is his effort to present that evidence
“in a synergistic way that may offer support to some of the physical
claims of the Book of Mormon” (p. iii). And lest we should be inclined
to doubt the compelling nature of his findings, we are presented with
ere are so many spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors in Remnant through
DNA that it would prove distracting for the reader if they were flagged whenever they are
reproduced in this review. us all quotations appear as they do in the original.
In this article, I speak only for myself. I’m grateful for the feedback and help of many
friends and colleagues. ese include Louis Midgley, Ugo Perego, Matthew Roper, Robert
B. White, Michael Whiting, and Allen Wyatt. David Keller, Matthew Roper, and James
Stutz helped me track down references. Any errors or misapprehensions remain mine
alone.
1. Cited in John D. Barrow, P. C. W. Davies, and Charles L. Harper, Science and
Ultimate Reality: Quantum eory, Cosmology, and Complexity (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2004), 325.
18
a page of “endorsements” by various authors with titles such as “Plant
Pathology,” “Ph.D.,” “MS MD,” and “Ph.D., Plant Geneticist” (p. iv).
Unfortunately, science does not proceed by enthusiasm, endorse-
ment, or testimonial. e data and arguments must speak for them-
selves, and we ought to require no preliminary assurance that the
book is “very well researched and accurate,” filled with “an impressive
and virtually-unassailable mountain of scriptural and archaeologi-
cal data.” “Anyone,” we are assured, “who would study this evidence
with an open mind would have a difficult time refuting it scripturally
or scientifically” (p. iv). I regret to say that this last statement is only
partly true—the difficulty lies mainly in the abundance and variety of
errors both scientific and scriptural, not in refuting it on theological
or scientific grounds.
Nevertheless, Meldrum tells us that “many scholars and histori-
ans support [his] research and its findings, with many more antici-
pated as this information continues to gain momentum and change
‘accepted’ paradigms” (p. iii).
A. e Conspiracy
Despite the endorsements and claims of wide acceptance, there
are “many scholars that do not support this research” (p. iii). e
author has an explanation for that, which becomes clear as Remnant
through DNA unfolds:
[Evolutionary dating] is dogma for the most powerful scien-
-
lution is strictly off limits by the three largest scientific orga-
the NAS (National Academy of Science)² and the AAAS
(American Association for the Advancement of Science).
ese three groups control the vast majority of funding for
scientific research and their leaders and members are, by their
own surveys, more than 90% atheists. A belief in the theory of
evolution is practically a prerequisite to advancement within
these scientific organizations. (pp. 109–10)
2. e National Academy of Sciences is the correct name.
M, R DNA19
No source is provided for these astonishing assertions. As nearly
as I can determine, they are false. I contacted Dr. Jay Labov, senior
advisor for education and communication at the National Academy
of Sciences, and asked him what he thought of this paragraph. He
pointed out that the “NAS and AAAS are not funding organizations,
so they cannot dictate how such funds are awarded.” Labov went on
to note that as for Meldrum’s second claim, that the NAS has sur-
veyed its membership on their religious affiliations, if any, “this state-
ment is patently false. e NAS has never done that. . . . Several papers
appeared in Nature and Scientific American in the 1980s and 1990s
that reported on surveys of NAS members, but the authors conducted
those surveys independently.”³
Meldrum informs us, though, that “there is much documentation
on this issue by outstanding organizations”—including, one hopes,
the claim that the non-funding NAS and AAAS control research
funding—but the best place to learn about the “strangle-hold on the
scientific purse-strings” is the Ben Stein documentary Expelled: No
Intelligence Allowed (p. 110).⁴ Despite all the documentation that
exists, “this is not the place to delve into this subject”—and so the
reader must simply trust that Meldrum has gotten it right.
3. Jay Labov, e-mail to author, 17 December 2009.
4. Stein’s documentary has certainly not been universally praised as either edu-
cational or fair. While one would expect scientists to be unappreciative (see Michael
Shermer, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
on Darwin,” Scientific American
cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-review-michael-shermer [accessed 23 March 2010], even
movie reviewers were relatively unimpressed. Jeffrey Kluger called it “dishonest” and
“not the stuff of deep thought“ (Jeffrey Kluger, “Ben Stein Dukes It Out with Darwin,”
Time
html [accessed 23 March 2010]. Roger Ebert says it “is cheerfully ignorant, manipulative,
slanted, cherry-picks quotations, draws unwarranted conclusions, makes outrageous jux-
tapositions, . . . segues between quotes that are not about the same thing, tells bald-faced
lies,” and so on (Roger Ebert, “Win Ben Stein’s Mind,” Chicago Sun-Times, 3 December
2010]). One source that amalgamates movie reviews and averages the score gave the film
poorly structured arguments, Expelled is a cynical political stunt in the guise of a docu-
20
B. Scientific Races?
Remnant through DNA is unfortunately rife with folk concepts
audience that “the primary races of the earth, Asian (Oriental), African
(Negroid) and European (Caucasian) are easily distinguished from each
other through specific DNA markers or ‘signatures’ that delineate their
ancestry” (p. 7). One of Meldrum’s cited references (no. 10, pp. 22–23)
repudiates any effort to tie genetics to common conceptions of race:
One definite and obvious consequence [of DNA findings] . . .
is that races in any meaningful sense of the term do not exist
in the human species. e term race as popularly imagined
implies groups that can be cleanly separated from one another,
and within our species, there simply are no such groups. Rather,
differences among groups of humans are always graded, and
decisions about whom to cluster with whom on genetic grounds
always must include arbitrary criteria.⁵
Meldrum even claims, on the basis of no cited evidence whatever,
that “through DNA sequencing, these three primary genetic groups,
called supergroups, can be differentiated one from another due to
the presence or lack of certain DNA markers which makes them
identifiable for genetic study. is makes it possible to identify
peoples’ genetic lineages” (p. 7). One can certainly determine a genetic
lineage, but it is difficult to shoehorn everything into a clean threefold
division of humanity. One study found that drug metabolism varied
among four genetic clusters of humans, but even “these clusters had a
generally poor correspondence with ethnic labels.” ⁶
It is thus misleading for Meldrum to discuss Noah’s children
and claim that “from these three brothers and their wives sprang
the world’s three primary lineages or ‘supergroups’ which in genetic
terms are African, European, and Asian” (p. 10). is claim is false, at
5. David B. Goldstein and Lounès Chikhi, “Human Migrations and Population
Structure: What We Know and Why It Matters,” Annual Review of Genomics and Human
Genetics 3 (2002): 137–38.
.,
“Population genetic structure of variable drug response,” Nature Genetics
M, R DNA21
least as it applies to the current scientific evidence. ere are super- or
macrohaplogroups L, M, and N, found at highest frequency in Africa,
Asia, and Europe, respectively. Members of each haplogroup are,
however, found in each area—it is not enough, for example, to find a
member of macrohaplogroup N and label that individual “European.”
to the mtDNA evidence, macrohaplogroups M and N are descended
from L). So for Meldrum’s model to work, Ham would have to be a
distant ancestor of Shem and Japheth, not a brother. Remnant through
DNA’s representation of the scientific evidence is simply wrong.
e genetic data demonstrate instead that “no matter how such
[racial] groups are defined, it is well known that the majority of the
genetic variation in the human species is due to differences between
individuals within, rather than between, [racial or ethnic] groups.”⁷
Modern genetics simply does not support the idea of discrete races,
the claim that there are three sibling “supergroup” clusters to which
one can easily assign most modern individuals, or the belief that “all
the world’s peoples descended [from Noah’s three sons] aer the great
flood” (p. 10):
While DNA scholars try mightily to find variation among
populations, the most obvious insight generally remains
unstated: namely, that we humans are practically identical
when it comes to our genetic makeup. Physical traits that
we recognize at a quick glance, such as skin color, eye shape,
and body size, may precondition us to believe that there exist
significant genetic differences . . . between us. In fact, these
physi cal traits are rooted in insignificant variations at the
level of our DNA. . . .
-
ings. e entire eugenics edifice rested on the perception that
humans came in a few unadulterated varieties—most com-
monly Africans, Asians, and Caucasians—as well as a range
of mixed or mongrel populations between them. It went
7. Goldstein and Chikhi, “Human Migrations,” 138.
22
without saying [and still does for Meldrum] that these pure
races were tangible, stable, and easily ascertained. Modern
DNA research has shown the wrongheadedness of such dis-
crete groupings.⁸
Meldrum is welcome to believe such things based on his own reading
of scripture, but he cannot recruit present-day science to confirm them.
“sufficient visual differences to make it easy to distinguish between
a ‘Lamanite’ and a ‘Nephite’ by sight” (p. 67) is inconsistent with
portions of the Book of Mormon text and demonstrates an acceptance
of folk reading with little reflection.⁹
An even more problematic folk idea revolves around Remnant
through DNA’s treatment of skin color. We are told that “the Book of
Mormon refers to Lehi’s group as being a ‘white’ and ‘delightsome’
people (1 Nephi 13:15, 2 Nephi 5:21, 3 Nephi 2:15), indicating that
their lineage did not carry the Canaanite bloodlines and therefore are
most certainly not of the genetically referred to African or Negroid
descent” (p. 12). Meldrum here does not engage the implications of
Joseph Smith’s 1840 edit of 2 Nephi 30:6 to “pure and delightsome”
instead of “white and delightsome.”¹⁰ Remnant through DNA also
betrays no awareness of the discussion regarding “white” in a Nephite
context, which may differ from American conceptions of race.¹¹ It is
also somewhat troublesome that he considers a label of “delightsome”
8. Andrés Reséndez and Brian M. Kemp, “Genetics and the History of Latin
America,” Hispanic American Historical Review
one of Meldrum’s sources (no. 37, pp. 79–80) disagrees with him.
9. See discussion of Alma 55:7–9 in Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical
and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford
Books, 2007), 4:696–97.
10.
Ensign, December 1983, 25.
11.
Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon ought
Gardner, Second WitnessLehi in the Desert; e World of the
Jaredites; ere Were Jaredites, ed. John W. Welch with Darrell L. Matthews and Stephen
“e Charge of ‘Racism’ in the Book of Mormon,” FARMS Review
M, R DNA23
as one criterion that “most certainly [does] not” imply a reference to
an “African or Negroid” person.
is casual embrace of folk doctrine reaches its height with the
matter of Cain:
Certainly the Lord understands the mechanism to alter DNA
and has shown that making a change in someone’s DNA
can be nearly immediate, such as in the case of Cain himself
receiving the dark skin ‘curse’ aer killing Abel his brother
(Gen. 4:8–9, PoGP Moses 7:22). (p. 67)
While this was a popular reading of the Cain story—and it remains
so in some circles—it is a dubious one. ere is no indication from
scripture that Cain was cursed with a black skin—the “mark” placed
upon Cain is for his protection, not given as a curse (Genesis 4:15). It is
not even clear that Cain had dark skin or that skin color was the mark,
despite centuries of Christians who concluded otherwise,¹² and from
whom nineteenth-century Mormons may have imbibed the idea. is
notion’s attractiveness was heightened by its use in justifying the pre-
1978 priesthood ban. Yet it seems clear in retrospect that such readings
were rather circular, based on assumptions that were not proved.¹³ By
1954 President David O. McKay would reportedly affirm that “there
12. See Stephen R. Haynes, Noah’s Curse: e Biblical Justification of American
Slavery (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002).
13. In saying this, I do not disparage those who may have erred on this matter in the
past. But certainly we with more revealed “light and knowledge” on the subject might
be more wary of perpetuating dubious ideas. Discussion along these lines is available in
Bruce R. McConkie, “All Are Alike unto God,” address to a Book of Mormon sympo-
Marcus H. Martins, “All Are (Really) Alike Unto God: Personal Reflections on the 1978
Way Back’: Considerations on Race, Pre-Existence, and Mortality,” expanded version
-
Marvin Perkins (director of African American Relations for the Southern California
Public Affairs Council of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), and “Blacks
24
is no doctrine in this church and there never was a doctrine in this
church to the effect that the Negroes are under any kind of a divine
curse.”¹⁴
If the skin was the curse, then by Meldrum’s reasoning there
ought to be no modern-day blacks, since they are not under a curse.
at the author acts as if genetic science confirms or justifies any of
these hoary ideas about race only makes it more painful.
Remnant through DNA’s racial muddle reaches its worst depths,
however, when the reader is told that the Lamanites’ near eradication
due to European diseases is rather like “the Jewish holocaust” since
“both of these ‘House of Israel’ populations have suffered the calamities
promised for unrighteousness” (p. 40). It is difficult to know what to
say to the idea that six million people received slaughter from poison
gas, overwork, and starvation because they were “unrighteous.” One
has to ask when, exactly, twentieth-century Jews received prophetic
warnings prior to such punishment. Here again, Meldrum ignores the
Book of Mormon text, for the future Gentiles are rebuked for their
attitude toward and treatment of the Jews:
And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive
from them? Yea, what do the Gentiles mean? Do they remem-
ber the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews, and
their diligence unto me, in bringing forth salvation unto the
Gentiles? O ye Gentiles, have ye remembered the Jews, mine
have hated them, and have not sought to recover them. But
for I the Lord have not forgotten my people. (2 Nephi 29:4–5)
is hardly sounds like the Nazi horror was an instrument of divine
before Hitler’s Germany:
and the Priesthood,” address in Westwood Chapel, Los Angeles, 8 September 2002, www.
14. Cited in Roger O. Porter, “Educator Cites McKay Statement of No Negro Bias in
Salt Lake Tribune
March 2010).
M, R DNA25
When the Lord shall see fit, in his wisdom, that these sayings
[the Book of Mormon] shall come unto the Gentiles accord-
ing to his word, then ye may know that the covenant which
beginning to be fulfilled. . . . Yea, and ye need not any longer
hiss, nor spurn, nor make game of the Jews, nor any of the
remnant of the house of Israel. (3 Nephi 29:1, 8)
While putting such racial folk concepts into print may have been
understandable and excusable in 1959, I think it both irresponsible
and evidence of ignorance to contribute to their continued currency
by writing, endorsing, or selling this volume in 2009.
All of these matters demonstrate that the author is not likely to
challenge any of his audience’s comforting ideas or biases. He also
appears to be unfamiliar with a fairly extensive literature. We will see
that this is a persistent problem that particularly afflicts his discussion
of genetics.
C. Inspired?
One aspect of Meldrum’s work that has been criticized previously
(including by me)¹⁵ is his implicit and explicit claim that his theories
are inspired, and that his advocacy in their behalf is directed by
15.
kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of
utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backwards. . . . Details that could throw doubt on
your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can—if
you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong—to explain it. If you make a theory,
for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that
disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. . . . In summary, the idea is to try to
the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another” (Richard
Engineering and Science
would “take the scriptures any day over a devout atheist when looking for truth. Greg
Smith would do well to do the same, but it is his decision. He has already cast his lot with
record, I am a believer in the Latter-day Saint scriptures (as well as a convinced Christian
26
God.¹⁶ Perhaps in response to this type of critique, Remnant through
DNA contains disclaimers, as it must if it is to get any traction among
Meldrum’s target audience—believing Latter-day Saints.
is true,” we are told, “nor is any claim made that it has been received
by revelation” (p. 5). One could be content if the matter rested here,
pages of “testimonials” that he has chosen to publicize. He does not
include any of the negative reviews or comments he has received. One
presumes, then, that he wishes these testimonials to influence how
we perceive his work—and he continues to link to them in e-mails
selling seats at his seminars.¹⁷ It is quickly apparent that, despite any
formal disclaimers made, Meldrum’s style of presentation is heavily
laced with the implication that he is a special, chosen person on a
divinely sanctioned mission. If he did not convey these ideas, from
where did his correspondents get them? And if he does not agree with
this portrait of his work, why does he publicize such ideas? We will,
therefore, consider several of Meldrum’s disclaimers and contrast
them with other statements that undercut his pro forma denials.
Meldrum: “I do not claim to know that this proposed theory is true”
(p. 5). “No level of DNA evidence will ever ‘prove’ the truthfulness of the
Book of Mormon” (p. 45).
Meldrum sent an e-mail on 9 May 2008 in which he invited
is communiqué strikes quite a different tone:
Aer fasting and praying about it with my family, and aer
reading my patriarchal blessing, . . . it was clear that I was
going to have to leave [my job] to work on these projects full
time, but I wanted more of a ‘sign’ from the Lord. So I had
prerequisite for scientific work. I was surprised to find this a point of disagreement.
16.
17.
Conference Information,” promotional e-mail, 3 March 2010.
M, R DNA27
three big projects about to close with [my job], and I told the
Lord that if he wants me to make this project my #1 priority
to please cause that none of these jobs go through. . . . Well,
within three days all three of the jobs were either terminated
by the client, lost to another company, or delayed until next
year! So on Monday, April 21st, I put in my two weeks notice
and began my new life working full-time on this project.¹⁸
is reply was reportedly received from a patriarchal blessing,
fasting, and prayer. Meldrum then seeks a sign from God and gets it. Yet
he argues that we are unjustified in concluding that this account strongly
implies that God supports or agrees with what he is doing. Why would
God give him a sign to spread a false theory about the Book of Mormon
full-time? And why would he tell others about his sign-seeking unless
he wants to influence them? Why would such divine instruction come
to him and not to the president of the LDS Church?
Recipients were then told about a blessing that he had requested
from an emeritus General Authority, “my dear friend”:
[My wife] and I had the most incredible and special experience
as we met with [him]. . . . [We were given] the most incredible
blessing[s] imaginable. ey were incredibly power ful and
caused both [my wife] and I to no longer doubt the validity of
work in which we are engaged.
ere is no doubt in the Meldrums’ minds about the validity of what
they are doing. is again seems a claim of certainty for the theory
Rod Meldrum is teaching full-time—or it is an attempt to exaggerate
his importance so that others will support him. e reported blessing
goes on to promise fruit from his efforts:
e only thing I can share from the blessings is that the over-
all understanding is that this information will go out to “mil-
lions” who will be touched by the work, and that this will
18.
will-out-at-last (accessed 24 March 2010).
28
“embolden” the saints to open their mouths and declare anew
the truthfulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ so that millions
will find and enter his kingdom! e spirit was overwhelm-
ingly wonderful and we felt so blessed to have that privilege.
So this theory will inspire millions, and millions will convert and be
saved. And other matters are alluded to that the recipients cannot yet
know. One must ask, are we to conclude that God would use a false or
uncertain theory for such loy purposes?
is written material predates the publication of Remnant through
DNA
¹⁹
theories is asserted:
confirmed by the
Holy Ghost.”
this is an answer to prayer
because of weak testimonies and questions that some Bishops & Stake
Presidents can’t answer—this will assist them. e children are asking
questions and this should give answers.”
America, but the Spirit tells us that the one [in New York] is the Hill
Cumorah, or Ramah spoken of by the Prophet Joseph Smith.”
we know that what you have
uncovered is right.”
e Web site likewise repeats the theme of certainty and proof:
proved that Joseph
Smith is a prophet and did know what he talked about.”
of Mormon was controversial and now feel that the controversy is
now over.”
authenticity and direct correlation with truth.”
19.
M, R DNA29
prove out the gospel.”
irrefutable evidences!
ank you so much for this gi of knowledge!”
Lord are verified by the scientific community, whether they intended
to do so or not.”
acknowledged by all as the unshakable foundation upon which all
truth is based . . .”
out your life bringing to light’ facts that have not been evident before
some of today’s newer scientific procedures have made such methods
of proof possible.”
Clearly, Meldrum’s theory is repeatedly described as having
“proved” Joseph’s prophetic status, it is “irrefutable,” and it is an
“unshakable foundation upon which all truth is based.” If Meldrum
disagrees with such enthusiasm, why does he use it to sell his materials?
And why should we believe his book’s disclaimer when the evidence
for what is really going on is all over his other writings and Web site?
Several grandiose claims are also made:
history. It’s hard to express the importance of these discoveries.”
need to become more and more accessible to thousands if not millions
of people.”
Book of Mormon. I think people like you will be critically important
to defending the Mormon faith against attacks by outsiders.”
you are on to something very significant.”
Such over-the-top praise seems unlikely to be instigated—much
less publicized—by someone offering his audience a cautious theory.
Note too the recurrence of the same theme that Meldrum emphasized
30
from his purported General Authority blessing: his work must affect
thousands or millions.
Meldrum: “Nor is any claim made that [my theory] has been
received by revelation” (p. 5). “God has not revealed it at this point”
(p. 45). “[Some have] claimed that the author declared the research true
by revelation, which is patently false” (p. 152).
Meldrum’s May 2008 e-mail announced that God had revealed
the name of the foundation and how other aspects of its work should
be conducted:
to be accomplished.”
out for this project!”
discover that buffalo were evidence for the Book of Mormon account:
“I was being directly guided in this particular portion.”²⁰
How are
we to understand these claims, if not as assertions that God is giving
revelation on these matters, which Meldrum is then publicizing?
e testimonials also claim that Meldrum has been called by God
to spread his theory:
wide and effects millions of people.”
such a great work. I felt so blessed when I hung up the phone and so
thankful that the Lord has guided you through this sacred project.
20. Rodney, Meldrum, “Buffalo Evidence,” DNA Evidence for Book of Mormon
Geography: New Scientific Support for the Truthfulness of the Book of Mormon; Correlation
and Verification through DNA, Prophetic, Scriptural, Historical, Climatological,
Archaeological, Social, and Cultural Evidence (Rodney Meldrum, 2008), sec. 8.
M, R DNA31
millions to the gospel.”
you will definitely and infintely find a guiding hand of assistance.”
marvellous instrument in the Lord’s hands? I am so impressed on so
many levels and to think I actually know you.”
pouring down knowledge from Heaven on the heads of honestly
seeking Later-day Saints. . . . We love you for your noble efforts to be
an instrument in the Lord’s hand, and are praying for the Spirit to
continue guiding you in such an important undertaking.”
Meldrum is “called” to be “an instrument in the Lord’s hand,” the
“Spirit [is] guiding” him, he will bring “millions” to the truth, and it
is an honor just to speak to him. Even reading such gushing, fawning
praise makes me ill at ease, and I am not even its target. But Meldrum
has no hesitation about publicizing “their words” so they “will touch
the lives of others in positive ways.”
Remnant through DNA asks us to believe that none of this is
intended to make it appear that Meldrum is claiming any revelatory
sanction for what he is doing. How, then, is his audience so confused?
And why does he advertise the error by posting their praises on his
Web site?
Meldrum: “As the Church has taken no official position on the . . .
geography of the Book of Mormon, . . . it is up to us as Latter-day Saints
to do our best to find out what God’s position is and follow it to the best
of our ability” (p. 149).
church programs as misguided. Missionary work is missing the target,
and the seminary program is spreading “speculative ideas” that differ
from Meldrum’s and against which children must be protected:
efforts to the Lamanites! I agree with you on Christ visiting the
32
confused the Lamanites with this other people.”
a child until they taught me differently in seminary.”
things so that when they are in Seminary, they will not be swayed by
other speculative ideas.”
e disclaimers notwithstanding, it is thus clear that Meldrum’s
audience is getting a quite different message—and he is doing much to
spread that different message.
Either the disclaimers in Remnant through DNA are not offered
in complete sincerity or the author is untroubled by mixed messages.
We will see below that despite his nod in the direction of restraint,
he pursues his course with an evangelistic zeal and certitude. It is
perhaps this aspect of his work that is most disturbing.
Meldrum is elsewhere perfectly frank about what he is attempting,
Book of Mormon Geography’ which has resulted in what is now
being termed a ‘movement’ within the latter day saint community.”²¹
Coauthor and business competitor Bruce H. Porter told the Salt Lake
Tribune that “the word is out now. ere is a movement going through
the church.”²² I am wary of such “movements” that are not under the
direction of the prophets and apostles.
D. Outline of is Review
is review consists of three broad sections. In part I we will
review Meldrum’s underlying assumptions and the rhetorical
strategies he uses to marginalize those members of the church who
would dare disagree with him. We will also examine his slapdash
21.
Conference Information.”
22. Kristen Moulton, “Book of Mormon geography stirring controversy,” Salt Lake
Tribune
the business competition between Porter and Meldrum, see Michael De Groote, “Mormon
geography conferences to compete this weekend,” Deseret News, 30 March 2010, www.
weekend.html (accessed 14 June 2010).
M, R DNA33
approach to scientific matters, and our findings here will serve as a
prelude for what we will encounter later. In part II we will confront the
morass of data presented by the author as he attempts to demonstrate
his DNA theory. We will see that his presentation of the scientific
data is incomplete, selective, and misleading and that he invokes the
atheist and evolutionist conspiracy that we have already encountered
to explain why others have not accepted his views. Part III concludes
with a brief examination of the risks that Meldrum’s approach and
proffered worldview pose to those who embrace them. is theme
is explored through a comparison with nineteenth-century creedal
Christianity’s encounter with the revolution wrought by Wallace and
Darwin’s theory of natural selection.
Part I—Presentation, Tactics, and Assumptions
I.A. Sloppy Work
Meldrum describes his work as
a rather technical book because it addresses a subject with a
high level of scientific contribution. A substantial number of
direct quotes from peer reviewed scientific journals are incor-
porated and an attempt has been made to explain them to well-
educated non-scientists. It is written in a way that maintains
scientific accuracy but is readable and understandable. (p. iii)
e book is attractively and professionally bound. Unfortunately,
the presentation of material between the covers does not inspire
confidence in its accuracy or scientific validity. A self-published
work, Remnant through DNA is in dire need of a good copy editor,
for mechanical errors and stylistic lapses are scattered throughout.²³
Many claims are made without any supporting documentation
number. Each reference is listed in the numbered bibliography,
23.
-
34
which is inconsistently formatted, with some entries displaying stray
underlining marks that appear to be the result of simple online cutting
and pasting.²⁴ Six of the references are repeated twice.²⁵ ere is no
index, and the bibliography is not particularly useful, partly because
page numbers are oen lacking.²⁶ Source citations within the text
refer to the entire article or book rather than to specific pages, making
it hard for the reader to heed the author’s encouragement to “check
up and verify the validity of the quotes” (p. iii).²⁷ Some articles do not
have even a month or an issue number, making it difficult to locate
the article within a year of the bound journal. is is not an apparatus
that lends itself well to verifying the author’s material.
More surprising, the author reports that he has been a “senior
scientific researcher for 7 years on a natural sciences book to be
published in the near future. at 1200 page university-level text will
be the culmination of over 12 years of research” (p. v). Having read
a few university-level science textbooks, I fear that the work under
review does not measure up—it does not even seem to have had paid
careful attention to research methodology or the requirements of
written English. is does not mean that valid insights cannot be
inelegantly or even poorly expressed, but such errors make one wonder
how well the same author has mastered the intricacies of modern
genetics, especially when he informs readers that his “professional
research activities have not been specifically focused in the area of
genetics” (p. iii).
e amateurish feel of the work is unfortunately not restricted to
the niceties of written English and documentation style. Enthusiastic
remarks pepper the pages, such as promises that “one of the most
exciting discoveries of human genetics regarding the Book of Mormon
24. Many articles list only one author when all authors or the designation et al. ought
to be included.
25. Reference nos. 4, 26, 27, 28, 35, and 77 are repeated in nos. 30, 43, 45, 46, 79, and
83, respectively.
26. Only 11 articles of 107 have some type of page reference. It again appears as if ref-
erences were just digitally copied and pasted with no attempt to style them consistently.
e last reference is, inexplicably, in boldface type.
27. Reference no. 6, for example, refers only to “Journal of Discourses
M, R DNA35
is about to be unfolded to your view, and the results are nothing
short of amazing” (p. 15). is tendency further detracts from any
perception of scientific rigor or restraint.
I.B. Meldrum and “the Scholars”
Meldrum told his audiences that when DNA and the Book of Mormon
first became an issue, he was “totally confident that the LDS scholarly
community would find the answers,” only to later conclude that “there
were several LDS scholars who were attempting to address the issue,
but didn’t really have an answer.”²⁸
In Meldrum’s view, the scholars
then went from incapable to dangerous. He accused various Latter-
day Saint scholars (including some associated with Brigham Young
University) of giving comfort to anti-Mormon enemies: “is is the
kind of stuff that the anti-Mormons just love. ey love to see our
LDS scholars dismissing Joseph Smith because they know, they can
see these things that Joseph Smith has written and they’re not being
followed by the scholarly community of the church, unfortunately.”²⁹
is type of in-your-face hostility toward scholars is happily less
prevalent in the earlier chapters of Remnant through DNA.
I had hoped that he had perhaps overcome some of his animus
toward scholars, but later sections in the book disappointed me. It
became clear that Meldrum is full of praise and admiration for any
snippet of text, any idea, or any scholar that can be made to agree with
his theory. But when an author’s position does not sustain Meldrum’s
model, that person either is le unmentioned or is castigated for
ignoring the prophets, twisting the scriptures, or being blinded by ad
hoc or a priori assumptions. We will see ample examples of each tactic
in subsequent sections.
Matthew Roper’s work, for example, is described in Remnant
through DNA as “informative” (pp. 19, 49) and “excellent” (p. 32) when
sections can be used to support Meldrum’s theories. Despite such
praise, however, Roper’s work has been cited by Meldrum as evidence
28. Meldrum, DNA Evidence, “Introduction.”
29. Meldrum, DNA Evidence, “Joseph Smith,” sec. 3.
36
that the “fruit” of placing the Book of Mormon in Central America is
Latter-day Saint researchers “dismissing” Joseph Smith, accompanied
by warnings that “in the gospel, we know that it is by their works that
you shall know things.”³⁰ How can Roper be both so right and so
misguided?
Remnant through DNA begins its discussion by lauding the fact that
certain critics’ faulty “assumptions have been thoroughly addressed
by the LDS scholarly community and will not be covered in detail
in this work” (p. 17). We are told that “it has also been well argued
that the internal indications from the text of the Book of Mormon
itself dealing with travel distances . . . [are] more easily explained by
a somewhat more limited geography. . . . ere are many volumes of
work on this subject by competent LDS scholars for which all should
be grateful” (p. 19). One must ask, though, why the author was
unaware of these facts before? Why did he go to such great lengths—in
available for sale³¹—to condemn Latter-day Saint scholars as not only
unable to respond to the DNA critics but also wobbly in their support
of Joseph Smith? Either he did not read or understand the material
that was already available—for none of what he cites is new—or he has
now changed rhetorical tactics.
e first chapters of Remnant through DNA contain several
complimentary references to various DNA articles published by
scholars have been doing all right aer all. “LDS scholars demonstrated
that using the current understanding of genetics and DNA research,
a claim that portends to ‘prove’ the Book of Mormon false had
fundamental flaws. eir contributions to the understanding of
DNA research for the membership of the Church are unquestionable
and undeniable” (p. 16). Yet until very recently Meldrum was both
questioning and denying exactly that.
30. Meldrum, DNA Evidence, “Joseph Smith,” sec. 3.
31. -
ucts.php#4 (accessed 24 March 2010).
M, R DNA37
Before Meldrum saw the light on this issue, his Web site insisted
that “their attempts are simply to attempt to discredit DNA science
in general or grasp some ‘reason’ why DNA studies have not (as yet)
vindicated the truthfulness of e Book of Mormon.”³² Now he tells
reasoned research that is certainly plausible, their explantaions fall
short of providing a solid answer that both addresses the DNA issues
and validates the claims of e Book of Mormon.”³³ So it seems his
previous condemnation was ill-placed—the Latter-day Saint scientists
he previously summarily dismissed were not out to disprove DNA
science aer all, and actually did good work: “All of these arguments
have been thoroughly addressed by LDS scholars. Several excellent
articles [which remain uncited] clarify and largely refute these
assumptions” (p. 23).
I.C. What Have the Scholars “Missed”?
Remnant through DNA is not content with what it describes
as the mere “neutral argument” (p. 25), offered by Latter-day Saint
geneticists, which only defangs the critics’ efforts to use DNA to
disprove the Book of Mormon.
Rather, Meldrum wants more. He insists that “however well
reasoned the explanations from the field of genetics are as assembled
by the LDS scholarly community, they have failed to address one
critical aspect of the Book of Mormon in this regard. Its prophecies and
promises clearly and irrevocably state that there will be a remnant of the
House of Israel le upon the Promised Land in the latter days” (p. 46,
emphasis in original). Meldrum then proceeds at great length to try to
provide a DNA evidence of exactly this, which we will examine below.
Remnant through DNA faces a problem, however. e Latter-day
Saint DNA scientists, whose work he now certifies, praises, and agrees
32.
March 2010).
33.
38
with, clearly do not take what he sees as the next step. ey do not
embrace his theories about DNA evidence for the Book of Mormon.
is state of affairs has its advantages—the reader is told in the preface
that many scholars and historians accept this information, and the
implication is that more are joining up every day. e situation is
made into a polarized one of “us” versus “them.” Many readers will be
sympathetic to the plucky underdog who dares to buck the established
wisdom.
is risks obscuring the key issue, however. Why would so many
DNA scientists disagree with Meldrum’s theory? He has assured us
that they are competent, informed, and thorough. Why have they
now dropped the ball so badly? It cannot be due to incompetence in
matters of genetics—Meldrum states that he has no genetics training,
and genetics has not even been a focus of his textbook research (p. iii).
By contrast, the Latter-day Saint authors he cites have considerable
leader of Human Identity DNA Measurements Group), David A.
McClellan (PhD, Louisiana State University, senior research scientist
for the Bigelow Laboratory for Oceanic Studies), D. Jeffrey Meldrum
(PhD, State University of New York, associate professor of anatomy and
anthropology and adjunct associate professor of the Department of
Anthropology at Idaho State University), Ugo Perego (PhD, University
of Pavia, Italy, senior researcher at the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy
³⁴
professor of anatomy and embryology at Idaho State University), and
Center, and associate professor of integrative biology).³⁵ Yet none of
them are willing to follow Meldrum’s lead.
Meldrum tells us that despite the clear Book of Mormon promises
that a remnant will remain in the latter days, “this irrefutable fact
seems not to have been considered or addressed while presenting the
34. Perego’s research in human population genetics focused on mtDNA applied to
the origins of Amerindians. He could not be better suited to evaluate Meldrum’s science.
35. References to these authors include Butler (pp. 22, 26–27), McClellan (pp. 26, 101,
151), D. J. Meldrum (pp. 23–24), Perego (pp. 78, 85), Stephens (pp. 23–24), Stubbs (p. 23),
and Whiting (p. 23).
M, R DNA39
multiple explanations of why no evidence of ‘European’ type DNA
has been found in Mesoamerica” (p. 46). is is quite astonishing—
these supposedly thorough, competent, believing scholars have
either ignored or neglected a major theme of the Book of Mormon.
As Meldrum told others who disagreed, “You are not protecting
Joseph Smith’s revelatory words, but ignoring them. . . . e truth will
prevail.”³⁶
Joseph Smith’s revelations.
I.D. Great Expectations, Part 1: Genetic Evidence
Many of Meldrum’s ideas about DNA and Book of Mormon
geography become explicable when we realize what he expects to find.
He is convinced that if scripture is true, there is going to be evidence—
is true, then archaeological findings will eventually bear it out, which
to a large extent it has, and therefore if the Book of Mormon is true,
then genetic truths and evidence will eventually bear out those truths
as well” (p. 3).
One cannot overemphasize the consequences of this article of faith
in Meldrum’s work, nor should we ignore its potentially dangerous
implications if it proves misleading. Meldrum presents himself and
archaeology must bear it out.³⁷ Meldrum assures us that it has—yet
archaeological evidence has not compelled atheists into Judaism or
Christianity. But what would it even mean for archaeology to “bear
the gods or the plot of Homer’s Iliad. What does it mean for the Old
covenant promises have to accurately reflect God’s will? If so, how does
a moral message find confirmation in the dirt of archaeology? Does
the Bible have to be historically accurate in every particular? If so, what
are we to do with the complete absence of archaeological evidence for
36. Rod Meldrum, e-mail to Scott Gordon, 3 September 2008.
37. is assertion is made in even more passionate terms on p. 110. See discussion
below in part III.
40
a global flood,³⁸ the conquest of Canaan,³⁹ the destruction of Jericho
in the proper time frame,⁴⁰ the people and events of the patriarchal
and Mosaic periods,⁴¹ Joseph’s rule in Egypt,⁴² or the Exodus and the
forty-year sojourn in Sinai?⁴³
extremes of completely accurate history or inspiring myth? If so,
where do we draw the line so that we may say with confidence what
type and degree of agreement archaeology must have with our beliefs
about scripture?
William Dever noted that archaeology cannot “prove the Bible
in any sense—either by demonstrating that the events . . . actually
happened, much less by validating the theological inferences that are
38. Creation/
Evolution
geophysics of God,’” Reports of the National Center for Science Education
e Genesis Flood
Morris, e Genesis Record (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976).
39. See William J. Hamblin, “Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon
Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon,” Journal of Book of
Mormon Studies
40. Hamblin, “Basic Methodological Problems,” quotes Bryant G. Wood, “Did
the Israelites Conquer Jericho? A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence,” Biblical
Archaeology Review
Most scholars will reject the possibility that the Israelites destroyed Jericho in about 1400
B.C.E. because of their belief that Israel did not emerge in Canaan until about 150 to 200
years later, at the end of the Late Bronze II period.” Hamblin goes on to note: “And scholars
have excellent reasons for dating the Exodus to the thirteenth century [BC], since a fif-
teenth-century [BC] Exodus creates more problems in the biblical account of the conquest
of Canaan than it solves” (p. 184). “e only way Wood’s theory works is if you redate the
end of the Middle Bronze Age from c. 1550 to c. 1400 B.C., and then redate the Exodus from
c. 1250 to c. 1450 B.C., a total shiing of standard chronology of 350 years” (p. 184 n. 78).
41. “Aer a century of modern research neither Biblical scholars nor archaeologists
have been able to document as historical any of the events, much less the personali-
ties, of the patriarchal or Mosaic eras.” William G. Dever, “Archaeology and the Bible:
Understanding eir Special Relationship,” Biblical Archaeology Review
42.
Methodological Problems,” 184.
43.
Problems,” 184.
M, R DNA41
drawn from these events.” is citation appears in one of the works
cited by Meldrum, but he has not taken its lesson to heart.⁴⁴
at the scripture is “true” implies a host of potential interpretations,
each of which invokes a legion of other claims—none of them
necessarily clear, and few borne out by archaeology. Remnant through
DNA’s claim sounds good, but what does it mean? Is it realistic? (is
claim is an excellent example of the book’s repeated tendency to make
sweeping claims with no documentation and to treat them as clear and
points as givens, constructing an increasingly rickety logical structure.)
An entire essay could be written on the issues raised by this single claim
We are likewise told that if the Book of Mormon is true, then there
must be evidence. And that evidence must be genetic (pp. 3, 24). But
what if the literal Book of Mormon events are such that genetic evidence
simply cannot be found? Not all historical processes leave traces that
can be discerned later. Some—even most—are lost beyond recovery,
forever. Most of the words spoken, songs sung, lives lived, plants grown,
and creatures spawned have le exactly no trace that is recoverable to
science. Does that mean these things did not exist? Can DNA prove that
the biblical patriarchs or the Savior himself ever lived?
multitude really happened. Yet what if we were to insist that there
must be archaeological evidence of it? Where are we le if we refuse to
consider that a group of five thousand Galilean peasants eating a single
meal of miraculously produced bread and fish two millennia ago simply
will not be found by even the most intrepid latter-day Indiana Jones?
44. James E. Smith, “Nephi’s Descendants? Historical Demography and the Book
of Mormon,” FARMS Review
e Anchor Bible Dictionary
(New York: Doubleday, 1992), 1:366. See also the entire discussion in Hamblin, “Basic
Methodological Problems,” 183–87.
42
I.E. Great Expectations, Part 2: Young Earth Worldview
Before considering Meldrum’s arguments for why such evidence
should be expected, we must understand that he has a second prevailing
bias or expectation—young earth creationism (YEC). Meldrum does
not tell us enough about his views on this point to determine the degree
to which his views on the creation match those of fundamentalist
Protestants.⁴⁵ But just as he insists that genetic evidence should exist
if the Book of Mormon is true, so he insists that if the Latter-day Saint
prophets are to be believed, and if the scriptures are true, then young
earth creationism must be correct (pp. 93–108).⁴⁶ And he insists that
“there will come a day when the truths from the scriptures [which
include a young earth and recent advent of humanity] will be proven
out by the truths in empirical, experimental science” (p. 99). Once
again, we see the conviction that his religious beliefs are true and that
they will therefore be vindicated by science.
I.E.1 Scriptural and prophetic imperative of a young earth view?
Meldrum begins his discussion by quoting President Harold B.
Lee: “e Church? e Church? What is ‘the Church’? And what
difference does it make whether the Church takes a position on
anything or not. e important thing is that God has taken a position
on everything and it is up to you to find out what it is” (pp. 93, 149).
45.
U.S. Protestant fundamentalism, see Eugenie C. Scott, Evolutionism vs. Creationism: An
Introduction
general history of evolutionary thought from before Darwin to the present, see Peter J.
Bowler, Evolution: e History of an Idea, 3rd ed. (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University
Monkey Trials
and Gorilla Sermons: Evolution and Christianity from Darwin to Intelligent Design
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007).
46. In using the term young earth creationism, I am not seeking to impute all such
ideas to Meldrum. I use it only as a convenient shorthand for one aspect of his views.
Some aspects that dovetail well with Protestant YEC thinking, however, include empha-
consensus (p. 96).
M, R DNA43
Meldrum interprets this to mean that the church need not “take an
‘official position’ on everything before we can know what is the truth”
(p. 93). is appears to be an effort to subtly insist that the views about
creation that he will now present ought to be embraced, even if they
are admittedly not “official.”
Here Remnant through DNA’s shoddy documentation causes
problems. e source provided for this quotation of President Lee’s
is “BYU CES Summer School, 1970” (p. 167 n. 48). I could not find
this quotation in any of the electronic databases at my disposal. Jeff
O’Driscoll checked all of President Lee’s 1970 discourses and could not
of President Lee’s talks and addresses and could find nothing close to
this. Clyde Williams, who edited e Teachings of Harold B. Lee and
probably knows more about President Lee’s writing and thought than
anyone living, was likewise unable to find the citation in his database.⁴⁷
A Google search turned up the quotation without documentation on
cougarboard.com and on a page created by Robert Marrot of BYU-
Idaho’s Department of History, Geography, and Political Science.⁴⁸
Marrot’s citation is identical to that provided by Meldrum, and so I
suspect this is Meldrum’s source. Marrot indicated to me that it was an
extemporaneous remark made by President Lee during the question-
and-answer session. e remark was precipitated, Marrot explained, by
a question about the church’s position on birth control.⁴⁹
In addition to the difficulties with verification and context, it is
not even clear that President Lee would have agreed with Meldrum’s
conclusion in this instance. On the issue of the creation, Lee said:
47.
e-mail to Matthew Roper, 4 December 2009. My thanks to Roper for conducting his own
search and to all three researchers for helping me solve this puzzle.
48.
html (accessed 24 March 2010). My thanks to Marrot for his help.
49. “ere was a question and answer session aer Pres. Lee’s address. Clion Holt
Jolley raised his hand and asked a question about what the Church’s position on birth
control was. Pres. Lee then gave the answer which you have included below. I was present
and wrote it down. I don’t know that I can find my original notes now.” Robert L. Marrot,
e-mail to author, 5 December 2009.
44
Perhaps if we had the full story of the creation of the earth and
man told to us in great detail, it would be more of a mystery
than the simple few statements that we have contained in the
Bible, because of our lack of ability to comprehend. erefore,
for reasons best known to the Lord, He has kept us in dark-
ness. Wait until the Lord speaks, or wait until that day when
He shall come. . . . en we shall know all things pertaining
to this earth, how it was made, and all things that now as chil-
dren we are groping for and trying to understand.
Let’s reserve judgment as to the facts concerning the
Creation until we know these things for sure.⁵⁰
Yet Meldrum seems to be implying that those who are really in tune
with the Spirit will get the “proper” answer—which is to agree with
Remnant through DNA. It is a long stretch from a remark about birth
control to a stance on the age of the earth and Book of Mormon
geography. e former has salvific implications and an answer that
may vary from couple to couple,⁵¹ while the latter are of purely
academic interest. While God certainly has a position on the creation,
President Lee apparently did not believe that we have yet received it or
that we ought to be insisting that we have.
Meldrum does not, however, show as much restraint. Despite
his preliminary caveat that “everyone is entitled to their best
understanding of the Lord’s words,” and extending his “sincere
compliments [to those who differ] at having achieved peace in
reconciling scriptural interpretations with [their] other beliefs,” the
50. e Teachings of Harold B. Lee: Eleventh President of the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-Day Saints, ed. Clyde J. Williams (Salt Lake City: Bookcra, 1998), 29, citing
“Story of the Creation,” BYU Summer School Lecture, 22 June 1954.
51. “Church members are taught to study the question of family planning, including
such important aspects as the physical and mental health of the mother and father and
their capacity to provide the basic necessities of life. If, for personal reasons, a couple
prayerfully decides that having another child immediately is unwise, birth control may
be appropriate. Abstinence, of course, is a form of contraception. Like any other method,
however, it has its side effects, some of which may be harmful to the marriage relation-
ship.” Homer S. Ellsworth, “Birth Control,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H.
Ludlow (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 1:116–17.
M, R DNA45
remainder of his discussion portrays those who differ as rejecting
scripture and the prophets (p. 94).
According to Meldrum, “there are many LDS educators and
scientists actually supporting and defending the evolution boat rather
than standing for truths in the scriptures and prophets.” He then
admonishes, “Remember the scriptures warn us about putting one’s
trust in the ‘arm of flesh’” (p. 120). ese statements don’t sound like
things one would sincerely compliment someone for doing.
Having assured us that he doesn’t wish to impugn those who differ
with him, Meldrum goes on to do just that, since “the following are
[the Lord’s] words through the scriptures and His mouthpieces, the
Prophets. ese verses and quotes are not raised to cause contention,
but to establish a base line for understanding this section” (p. 94).
is is quite coy, but “causing contention” is exactly what Meldrum’s
tactics are likely to do. e church has no official position on the vast
majority of the issues related to organic evolution or the age of the
earth, despite strong feelings and views expressed by many leaders.⁵²
Yet, Meldrum simply presents a selection of quotations from some
church leaders that match his young earth reading of the scriptures.
He declares that these are God’s “words through the scriptures, and
His mouthpieces, the Prophets.” Meldrum thus insists that these are
not merely the opinions or considered views of the men we sustain as
prophets, but that they are words given by God to prophets in their
official capacity as his mouthpieces. And we are urged to accept his
reading of the scripture as divinely sanctioned.
Why would this cause contention? Because such a claim is plainly
Doctrines of
Salvation and Man, His Origin and Destiny.⁵³ He characterizes such
was not then serving as president of the church. ough admitting
that such claims are “as viewed by this author,” Meldrum sets out to
52.
Mormonism and Evolution: e
Authoritative LDS Statements (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2006), 9–38.
53. Meldrum quotes from these writings on pages 95–97 (reference no. 49) and 97
(reference no. 51) of his book.
46
portray anyone who disagrees with President Smith as rebellious or
for all who will listen. Nevertheless there will always be those that will
strain at the prophetic meanings, offering their own interpolations
to assist in conforming to their own personal beliefs” (pp. 95–96). It
appears that Meldrum’s “sincere compliments” for those who come to
a different view are less than sincere.
“When any man, except the President of the Church, undertakes to
proclaim one unsettled doctrine, as among two or more doctrines in
dispute, as the settled doctrine of the Church, we may know that he
is not ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost,’ unless he is acting under the
direction and the authority of the President. Of these things we may
have a confident assurance without chance for doubt or quibbling.”⁵⁴
sought to have Man, His Origin and Destiny published by the church but
that the church declined to do so.⁵⁵ When President Smith decided to
publish the book, David O. McKay (who was the president of the church)
wrote to the head of the University of Utah’s geology department that
“on the subject of organic evolution the Church has officially taken no
Smith] was not published by the Church, and is not approved by the
Church. e book contains expressions of the author’s views for which
he alone is responsible.”⁵⁶
writing, “e Church has issued no official statement on the subject
54. J. Reuben Clark, Jr., “Church Leaders and the Scriptures” [original title “When
Are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture?”], in
Immortality and Eternal Life: Selections from the Writings and Messages of President J.
Reuben Clark, Jr. (Salt Lake City: e Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1969–
70): 2:215–25. is address to seminary and institute teachers at BYU on 7 July 1954
was reproduced in Church News, 31 July 1954, and reprinted in Melchizedek Priesthood
Personal Study Guide (Salt Lake City: e Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
1989), 66, and in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon ought
55. See Duane E. Jeffrey, “Seers, Savants, and Evolution: e Uncomfortable
Interface,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon ought
56. e letter was reportedly published with the permission of President McKay,
who gave permission on 18 October 1968. See William Lee Stokes, “An Official Position,”
Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon ought
M, R DNA47
of the theory of evolution. Neither ‘Man, His Origin and Destiny’ by
McConkie, is an official publication of the Church.”⁵⁷
ese letters have been oen quoted, though an important caveat
has oen been ignored. In 1988 Elder Boyd K. Packer (then a member
that such letters should not be understood to deny the existence of any
official statements on evolution.⁵⁸
example, that “it is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon
this earth, and that the original human being was a development from
lower orders of the animal creation. ese, however, are the theories
of men. e word of the Lord declares that Adam was ‘the first man
of all men’ (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard
him as the primal parent of our race.”⁵⁹ Elder Packer reminded his
audience that official church doctrine is not established by letters to
⁶⁰
Given this important clarification, then, I am inclined to view
President McKay’s remarks about the lack of an official position as
Presidency. President McKay’s secretary wrote another member in
this vein (that is, regarding the age of the earth, its creation, and so
57.
letter from President McKay, along with the query that elicited it, is available online at
58. Boyd K. Packer, “e Law and the Light,” in e Book of Mormon: Jacob through
Words of Mormon, To Learn with Joy
reader is encouraged to read it in its entirety. President Packer also made it clear that he
was not speaking on behalf of the church or under assignment.)
59.
Origin of Man,” Improvement Era, November 1909, 80. See also statements in “Words
Deseret Evening News, 17 December 1910, pt. 1,
Improvement Era, September 1925, 1090–
91. Excerpts from these statements are available in the appendix to Packer, “Law and the
Evolution (accessed 24 March 2010).
60. Packer, “Law and the Light,” 23.
48
on), “Until either the Lord speaks directly upon the matter, or until the
scientists are able to say that they have the ultimate truth covering these
any statement regarding such things.”⁶¹ I would read this as saying
about other areas of doctrine that have yet to be addressed would be
premature and liable to cause confusion unless undertaken by the
his diary entry noted: “I told them [four LDS educators] that that book
[Man, His Origin and Destiny] should be treated as merely the views
and [that] makes it more or less authoritative, but it is no more to be
taken as the word of the Church than any other unauthorized book.”⁶²
In the case of Man, His Origin and Destiny, Elder Smith was clearly
not acting in behalf of the church. By President Clark’s and President
Packer’s reasoning, and by President McKay’s direct statement, this
makes Elder Smith’s views solely his own where they go beyond
Meldrum is welcome to accept such views as the word of God
and the truth. But it is inappropriate for him to portray them—if
only by implication—as more binding upon members than they are.
the presidency of the church.⁶³ Meldrum tells us that this provides
“a double witness from two prophets, backed up by the foundational
61.
Bergera and Ronald Priddis, Brigham Young University: A House of Faith (Salt Lake City:
Signature Books, 1985), 158.
62.
Robert Wright, David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism (Salt Lake City:
University of Utah Press, 2005), 47.
63. God, Family, Country: Our ree Great Loyalties (Salt Lake City:
is Nation Shall Endure (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book,
M, R DNA49
Certainly it is not possible to accept the scriptural account
of Adam . . . and also accept that there were humans in the
Americas 12,000–36,000 years ago. One or the other is cor-
rect, and as stated at the beginning of this work, if there is a
clear answer from the scriptures and there is a conflict, this
-
standing, in this case, the scripturally based entry to the earth
by Adam and Eve happened 6,000 years ago. is makes any
claimed entry into the Americas before this time impossible
and therefore incorrect. (pp. 126–27, emphasis added)
I find this sort of fundamentalist thinking and distortion extra-
ordinarily troubling, and it is one reason why I consider Meldrum’s
theories worthy of review. He distorts the status of this teaching for the
Latter-day Saints, refrains from quoting any authorities who differ with
his views, portrays his sources as more authoritative than they are, and
insists that the scriptures require it, making any other reading or view
“impossible.” erefore, anyone who disagrees is ignoring the “clear”
teachings of scripture. And anyone who differs is automatically less zealous
in upholding the scriptures than Meldrum. “ere are faithful members
of the Church that have a deep belief in evolution and have been able to
reconcile their beliefs. . . . Please know that your beliefs are respected,” we
are assured (p. 149). Yet if my beliefs differed from Meldrum’s absolutism,
I wouldn’t find much respect in his caricatured treatment.
In other venues the author has also criticized Brigham Young
University on these same grounds: “Maybe you can tell me why we
are teaching Evolution and an ‘old earth’ at the very university he
[Brigham Young] founded.” Meldrum’s expressed conviction was that
such teaching was done only “for accreditation compliance.”⁶⁴ I would
be quite hesitant to charge the trustees of Brigham Young University
64.
-
2010).
50
(which include the current prophets and apostles) with knowingly
allowing Latter-day Saint youth to be instructed in pernicious and
false ideas merely for the sake of a worldly matter like accreditation. I
find Meldrum’s attitude both disturbing and bewildering, and a clear
sign that his line of reasoning presents both intellectual and spiritual
dangers—despite the belied protestations of brotherhood and respect.
Brigham Young University president Dallin H. Oaks, in his first address
to BYU faculty in September 1971, “asked that guilty parties . . . ‘stop
casting aspersions on [the] testimony and devotion of their colleagues’”
over precisely this issue.⁶⁵ I think that wise counsel for all.
I am also troubled because Meldrum’s insistence clearly risks causing
the contention among members that he claims he does not intend.
Unfortunately, conflict and mutual misunderstanding have frequently
settle these matters. Given the lack of recent general conference addresses
that treat this subject, it does not seem to me that the current leaders of the
church feel that church members who have not embraced a young earth
creationism need to be called to repentance or chastised.
Aspects of creation and its related matters not discussed by
consequence, save when one’s views risk disaffection from the church
or its covenant teachings. (Whether species have evolved, how long
humans have been here, whether any species were subject to death
prior to Adam, and whether the earth was created in thousands or
billions of years seem minor religious points, not worth debating in
church. By contrast, whether humans are only advanced animals with
no moral duties to God or each other seems of far greater moment.)⁶⁶
I have too oen seen cases in which members were told that they must
embrace a young earth or advent of Adam in 4000 to be faithful to
the church and gospel—and they have then concluded that the gospel
65. Bergera and Priddis, Brigham Young University: A House of Faith,
indicate that they are quoting Oaks’s handwritten talk notes.
66.
stake BYU fireside on 29 March 1992 and reproduced in his book e ings of the Soul
(Salt Lake City: Bookcra, 1996), 111.
M, R DNA51
of Christ must be false because they could not believe these claims
against science, despite study and spiritual reflection.
Meldrum might reply that such an inability reflects a spiritual or
intellectual weakness. Perhaps God has not made such views official
or mandatory simply because of our immaturity, and if we would only
embrace the higher law or knowledge that Meldrum offers, things
would be better. Let us grant that this is so, for the sake of discussion—
but even then, it is not Meldrum’s place to insist upon such doctrines
when the presiding authorities have declined to do so.⁶⁷
Even if the young earth position is granted to be true, the potential
risk posed to vulnerable souls by Meldrum’s species of dogmatism strikes
me as too steep a price for so tangential a matter. Keeping someone in the
church—even with a false idea about the age of the earth—seems to me
who regard themselves as “strong” in such matters (on either side of the
question) to “bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please [them]
selves.” Aer all, “if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest
thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ
died.” We ought to avoid “any thing whereby [our] brother stumbleth,
or is offended, or is made weak.” If we are convinced that we have the
proper answers to such questions, we ought, it seems to me, “have it to
[ourselves] before God” (see Romans 14:19–15:1), until those who hold
the keys instruct otherwise.
At the same time, we cannot always allow misrepresentation of
a point of view to proceed unchallenged, lest some be misled. ose
given false information oen learn later that their trust was misplaced.
ey then complain that “the church” (rather than “a member of
the church”) taught them falsehoods because misinformation was
presented in a church context draped in the trappings of the gospel.
Even if evolutionary theory is false in every particular, we do the
cause of truth no service by creating strawmen, misrepresenting it, or
minimizing the evidence offered in its behalf. We must deal with its
most robust case if we are not to lead others to assume we were either
67. Gospel Doctrine (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book,
Journal of Discourses, 3:318.
52
ignorant or disingenuous—neither state being a good apologetic. And
if we are right to oppose evolution, any efforts that do not fully address
the depth and breadth of the best evidence are doomed to failure.
Several chapters aer his insistence upon a young earth, Meldrum
suggests that he knows much of this: “As the Church has taken no
official position on the matter of the geography of the Book of Mormon,
evolution, the age of the earth, . . . it is up to us as Latter-day Saints
to do our best to find out what God’s position is and follow it to the
best of our ability” (p. 149). is is good advice—but its moderation
is nowhere apparent during Meldrum’s extended discussion of these
issues, fiy pages earlier. And the text that follows this acknowledgment
allows the author to undercut the church’s lack of an official stance by
implying that those who don’t come to his conclusion simply haven’t
done their spiritual duty. It reads:
It is a slothful servant that must be commanded in all things
(D&C 58:26) and it is a wise leadership that does not take an
“official position” on everything. How blessed we are to use
our best judgment and draw on the Lord rather than abro-
gating our responsibility to make corrective self-alignments
as necessary to remain close to the Lord’s position without
straying into the philosophies of men against which the Lord
has repeatedly warned. . . . If the dates [for DNA] do not align
with the teachings of the scriptures and the prophets, extreme
caution is advised. (pp. 149–50)
Despite a nod to the lack of an official church stance on these
issues, Meldrum makes his assessment of those who differ with him
unmistakable. Other examples pepper the text:
us of teachings and teachers that disbelieve the inspired accounts of
the scriptures” (p. 97).
theory of evolution with scripture through questioning what is meant
by the term ‘day’ in scripture, invoking a ‘time’ or ‘period’ of creation
without any specific parameters. e scriptures and Presidents Smith
M, R DNA53
and Benson made the answer to this abundantly clear. ere are
parameters, and they have been given by revelation” (p. 99).
Notwithstanding his note that the church has no official views on
these issues, the latter citation again demonstrates that Meldrum is in
practice not granting anyone much leeway to differ with him, lest one
contradict prophets and the scriptures. (But he surely respects such
people!) One ought not to even suggest a longer creative period than
seven thousand years. Despite Meldrum’s personal certainty, “the
scriptures do not say how old the earth is, and the Church has taken
no official stand on this question. Nor does the Church consider it
to be a central issue for salvation.”⁶⁸ If not central to salvation, then
perhaps Meldrum’s dire warnings about “the philosophies of men”
and need for “extreme caution” are a bit overblown. He is either
unaware or untroubled that his stance would condemn such leaders as
of Bruce R. McConkie. Elder Widtsoe wrote: “We must remember
that Joseph Smith made this translation [of Abraham] long before the
theologians of the world had consented to admit that the Mosaic days
beyond question that immense time periods had been consumed in
the preparation of the earth for man.”
69
And further:
ough the exact, or even approximate, age of the earth is
not known, it is fairly certain that immense time periods,
hundreds of thousands or even millions of years in length,
were consumed in preparing the earth for man’s coming. . . .
e account of Moses as recorded in Genesis, first and second
chapters, and also in the Pearl of Great Price, (Book of Moses,
second and third chapters), speaks of six days in which God
created the heavens and the earth. In the original Hebrew
68. Morris S. Petersen, “Earth,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 2:431–432. See also
Packer, “Law and the Light,” 24, where the age of the earth and the length of time occu-
pied by the creative process are said to be unknown.
69. John A. Widtsoe, Joseph Smith as Scientist: A Contribution to Mormon Philosophy
(Salt Lake City: e General Board, Young Men’s Mutual Improvement Associations,
54
from which Genesis was translated, the word rendered day
means literally a time period of indefinite duration. . . . e
more the matter is carefully examined, the firmer grows the
belief that the creation of the earth occupied immense time
periods, the exact length of which is not yet given to man to
know. is view does not in any way discredit the book of
books, the Holy Bible. e Bible must be read with under-
than a man desires so to be held. By verse and chapter and
book, the Bible will be found an accurate, inspired record of
the most wonderful and valuable events and doctrines of the
world. However, it must not be forgotten that the Apostle Paul
has reminded us that “the invisible things of him from the
creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by
when nature is read understandingly God may thereby in part
be comprehended. ere is no conflict between the story of
the rocks and the Bible, except as man has made it.
70
e oldest, that is to say the earliest, rocks thus far identi-
fied in land masses reveal the fossilized remains of once liv-
ing organisms, plant and animal. e coal strata, upon which
the world of industry so largely depends, are essentially but
highly compressed and chemically changed vegetable sub-
stance. e whole series of chalk deposits and many of our
deep-sea limestones contain the skeletal remains of animals.
ese lived and died, age aer age, while the earth was yet
unfit for human habitation. . . . If the Usher chronology be cor-
rect, or even approximately so, then the beginning of Adamic
history as recorded in scripture dates back about 4000 years
before the birth of Christ. . . . is record of Adam and his
posterity is the only scriptural account we have of the appear-
70. Improvement Era, April 1909,
491, 494 (emphasis in original).
M, R DNA55
ance of man upon the earth. But we have also a vast and ever-
increasing volume of knowledge concerning man, his early
habits and customs, his industries and works of art, his tools
and implements, about which such scriptures as we have
thus far received are entirely silent. Let us not try to wrest
the scriptures in an attempt to explain away what we can
not explain. e opening chapters of Genesis, and scriptures
related thereto, were never intended as a text-book of geology,
archaeology, earth-science or man-science. Holy Scripture
will endure, while the conceptions of men change with new
discoveries. We do not show reverence for the scriptures when
we misapply them through faulty interpretation.
71
ough he repeats his well-known rejection of organic evolution
and physical death for any creature prior to the fall, Elder McConkie
is elsewhere not definite on the length of the creative periods:
identifiable events. And each day, of whatever length, has
the duration needed for its purposes. One measuring rod
is the time required for a celestial body to turn once on its
axis. . . . ere is no revealed recitation specifying that each of
the “six days” involved in the Creation was of the same dura-
tion. . . . e temple account, for reasons that are apparent to
those familiar with its teachings, has a different division of
events. It seems clear that the “six days” are one continuing
period and that there is no one place where the dividing lines
between the successive events must of necessity be placed.
72
71.
Deseret News-
sequently published as a pamphlet by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
e Instructor, December 1965, 474–77, and January 1966, 9–15.
is excerpt is from the 1931 pamphlet, with emphasis added.
72. Bruce R. McConkie, “Christ and the Creation,” Ensign, June 1982, 11. My thanks
to Ugo Perego for bringing this quotation to my attention.
56
Brigham Young even warned about the risk to the souls of others,
should we insist too much upon such things.
It was observed here just now that we differ from the Christian
-
rially. I am not astonished that infidelity prevails to a great
extent among the inhabitants of the earth, for the religious
teachers of the people advance many ideas and notions for
truth which are in opposition to and contradict facts demon-
strated by science, and which are generally understood. Says
do not understand the law, light, rules, religion, or whatever
me, and if I submit to and embrace your views and theories I
must reject the facts which science demonstrates to me.” is
is the position, and the line of demarcation has been plainly
drawn, by those who profess Christianity, between the sci-
ences and revealed religion. You take, for instance, our geolo-
gists, and they tell us that this earth has been in existence for
thousands and millions of years. ey think, and they have
good reason for their faith, that their researches and investi-
gations enable them to demonstrate that this earth has been
Lord, as religionists declare, made the earth out of nothing in
but by what we can learn from nature and the immutable
laws of the Creator as revealed therein, we know that your
theories are incorrect and consequently we must reject your
rejecting those truths, become enthusiasts in, what you call,
Christianity.”
73
73. Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, 14:115–16.
M, R DNA57
“e first great scientists were themselves devout Christians, who
believed that in their scientific investigations they were but rethinking
the thoughts of God,” noted Harold B. Lee.
As blind as the atheist—or as the Bible calls him, the fool—is
the religious man who makes his faith rest upon the question
of how God created the world and how long it took. Man’s
major concern should not be an understanding of the ground
from which he is brought forth, but the discovery of the
will and purpose of the Creator. In other words, his major
thoughts should not be in geology, but in theology, if he would
be saved.⁷⁴
I.E.2 How to handle science and a young earth?
Meldrum is aware that many aspects of modern science seem to
contradict the young earth view upon which he rests so much:
It is freely admitted that there are many things that appear
difficult to reconcile with a proposed “young” age of the earth,
but this is tempered by the hope and faith that one day all
these things will become known and the author believes that
we will find that God and his prophets were right all along,
and the philosophies of men were in error, when that day
comes. (p. 96)
is is a wise approach. It is unfortunate, however, that Meldrum does
not follow it. It is intellectually consistent to insist that although at
present things appear one way to science, one can hope that eventual
discoveries or changes in perspective will bring the scientific model
in line with one’s reading of scripture. But Meldrum does not confine
himself to this. He insists that genetic evidence in support of the Book
of Mormon must exist and that his book is an exercise in seeking
to apply the current scientific evidence to this issue. e problem is
clear: the current science strongly contradicts many of his claims,
yet he invokes that same science to bolster his theories. We will here
74. Teachings of Harold B. Lee, 344, citing “Be Ye Not Deceived,” BYU address, 4 May
1965.
58
examine a few of his inconsistencies on tangential scientific matters
because they illustrate in miniature the errors that Remnant through
DNA makes in its main argument, which we will examine in part II.
I.E.2.a Carbon dating
in the Americas to establish that haplogroup X preceded Columbus in
the Americas (p. 90).⁷⁵ But this same dating technology is simply not
consistent with the claim that humans did not exist prior to 4000 ,
or that a period of only seven thousand years was required to create the
earth.⁷⁶ One must either accept that carbon dating can accurately date
human and other biologic remains or reject this claim. In a scientific
argument one cannot, as Meldrum does, invoke a principle when it
supports a theory, only to disregard or ignore it when it does not. If
carbon dating gives ages that are too old (as it must, if a young earth
model is accepted), then how can we trust that human remains dated
before Columbus are not likewise more recent than they appear?
I.E.2.b e Ice Age
When evidence clashes with Meldrum’s theories, he typically
dismisses it. Of the ice age during which the Americas were colonized,
according to current scientific models, Meldrum writes:
75. Carbon dating measures the amount of radioactive carbon-14 (¹⁴C) present in
materials that were once alive. Once living matter dies, it ceases to accumulate ¹⁴C, which
will decay in the remains at a known rate. us, the amount of ¹⁴C remaining in the pres-
ent-day sample provides a precise measure of the time since death. e current ¹⁴C cali-
bration curve has been correlated with independent techniques (such as dendrochronol-
ogy [tree ring ages], ocean sediment samples, and sea coral growth data) and is accurate
Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0–26 Cal kyr BP,” Radiocarbon
76. As one example among hundreds, recent work in southern Chile carbon dates
Science
(accessed 29 March 2010). One of Meldrum’s cited references discusses this as well, plac-
ing Australian habitation at least sixty thousand years ago. See David A. McClellan,
“Detecting Lehi’s Genetic Signature: Possible, Probable, or Not?” FARMS Review
(2003): 76.
M, R DNA59
is “ice age” is supposed to have held so much water in
the glacial ice that it caused world-wide ocean levels to drop
some 90–100 feet, which caused a “land bridge” between
Alaska and Russia. . . . Exactly what the mechanism is that
would cause such a catastrophic change is unknown.
Whether any humans would have survived such a
precipitous and consistent drop in temperature across the
globe is also unknown. e resulting crop and plant failures
due to year round freezing temperatures would make it
impossible for most animals and humans to find food and
would cause a complete collapse in the normal food chains
and populations of the earth.
Such an event is speculative and without precedence or
actual observation according to human historical accounts.
It is also speculated to have occurred nearly twice as long ago
as mankind was on the earth according to the scriptures and
the prophets. (p. 100)
It would be difficult to cram more misinformation and omission
age is only one of several such periods evident from geological data.
e key scientific problem is not in explaining one ice age, but in
explaining why they seem to happen with such regularity.
Meldrum’s first error is one of logic—one need not be able to
explain how something happened in order to know that it happened.
We might lack the knowledge of economics and politics necessary to
we then must doubt that there was a stock market crash, a dustbowl,
and soup kitchens. We cannot explain the mechanism that underlies
the atonement of Christ, but we need not doubt either its efficacy or
reality.
ough we need not understand the mechanism behind an
event to assert its happening, Remnant through DNA’s claim that the
causes of ice ages are “unknown” is likewise misleading. Meldrum
wants to know “exactly” what caused them, and the precision that
he demands can doubtless be adjusted to make any explanation
60
inadequate (and, thus, putative grounds for disbelief in their
occurrence). is tactic disguises, however, the fact that a variety
of mechanisms are well-understood contributors to glacial periods
(many rely on fundamentals of thermodynamics and Newtonian
if something isn’t “exactly . . . known,” it is not to be trusted at all.
Science is not about certainty, but about probability and plausibility.
Despite the author’s rather blithe confidence, petroleum geologist
Jim Snook’s chapter “How the Glacial Cycle Works” is not blank, but
contains an accessible discussion of the heat capacitance of land and
water, energy variation due to sunspot cycles, an orbital-mechanical
difference that cycles every 93,000 years, a terrestrial axial-tilt cycle
that lasts 41,000 years, the earth’s “wobble” cycle of 21,000 years,
albedo (variation in the earth’s reflectivity based on the amount of
cloud cover, snow cover, volcanic ash, etc.), and so on.⁷⁷
plate theory also plays a role since a unique alignment of land masses
currently blocks both poles. is configuration prevents the normal
circulation of warmed ocean water, increasing glaciation. e freezing
point of seawater was also potentially altered by the sequestration of
salt in a landlocked Mediterranean six million years ago.⁷⁸ ere is
nothing about an ice age that is impossible or contradicts currently
known facts about the physical world.
Strangely, Meldrum claims that the risk of “crop” failures also
makes the ice age scenario unlikely, yet the standard scientific model
does not report the development of agriculture until the Neolithic
revolution, well aer the last ice age.⁷⁹ Crops are irrelevant to the
77. Jim Snook, Ice Age Extinction: Cause and Human Consequences (New York:
Algora, 2008), 31–47.
78. David Christian, Maps of Time: An Introduction to Big History (Berkeley and Los
Angeles: University of California Press, 2004), 131.
79.
Agriculture at Kuk Swamp in the Highlands of New Guinea,” Science
2010). Middle Eastern fig cultivation is dated to more than eleven thousand years ago in
Science
M, R DNA61
scientific argument. Ironically, the formation of soil suitable for human
agriculture requires glacier action, save in the case of volcanic ash
soils. Meldrum denies the occurrence of that which made agriculture
possible.⁸⁰ His presumption that there were “year round freezing
temperatures” also reflects a basic unfamiliarity with the model.⁸¹
Meldrum also seems unaware that Inuit and other arctic peoples
have thrived for hundreds of years in circumstances no more
hospitable than an ice age: it seems that humans are quite capable
of surviving such conditions. He also fails to mention that the “land
bridge” theory is based not only on a theoretical ice age model but also
on archaeological evidence that reveals habitation during the proper
time period. Indeed, evidence from archaeology and paleontology
(large mammal bones and ancient pollen) indicates that during
the last ice age, Beringia (the area that included the land bridge but
Mountains in the west to the Mackenzie River in the east”)⁸² was “a
80. “Of the four major sources of fertile land—river flood plains and deltas, loess
deposits, glacial till, and volcanic ash—only volcanic ash is not associated with glacia-
tion.” Snook, Ice Age Extinction, 114.
81. Estimated global average surface temperature differences between geologi-
cally recent interglacial and glacial periods are only 6–8°C at most. Average tempera-
tures in the tropics declined by perhaps 5–6°C. Some areas nearer the poles would
always have been below freezing, but that is also true of the earth today. Geological
evidence for an altered tree line demonstrates that the ranges of organisms shied,
but the earth was not completely glaciated, nor were all species pushed to extinction.
shivers through the tropics—temperature may have declined substantially in the trop-
ics during ice age, contrary to common belief,” Science News, 29 July 1995, findarticles.
animal ranges had time to shi. is is not to claim that there were no extinctions
as a result, but the picture is not nearly as grim as Meldrum suggests. Genetic data is
one line of evidence that points to the drop in ice age animal populations, with later
recovery.
82. Human Ecology of Beringia (New York:
Columbia University Press, 2007), ix. “Beringia was truly continental in size, and most
of it lay above latitude 60°N. It was a land . . . isolated to a significant degree from other
parts of the earth” (ix).
62
productive grassland ecosystem, rather than an exceedingly harsh
Arctic desert environment,”⁸³ as Meldrum seems to assume (p. 100).
If Meldrum wishes to dismiss the ice age, he must confront the
voluminous evidence for its existence, not simply claim that it has
unresolved problems. It is strange that he questions the ice age partly
because there is no human-created historical record of such an event.
If science must exclude everything about which there are no human
records, it will not be le with much. Interestingly, the “Little Ice Age”
occurred within human historical time (approximately 1450–1850)
as a result of relatively well-understood mechanisms related to other
glacial periods.⁸⁴
I do not intend the above to argue for the ice age’s reality. Such an
argument would require a much longer discussion from a variety of
disciplines. But that is precisely the point—Meldrum has dismissed
the data out of hand. He has ignored the strongest evidence and made
numerous misrepresentations in a single paragraph. We need not
agree that there was an ice age to demand that its best evidences be
confronted and addressed.
I.E.2.c Evolution
83. Andrew Kitchen, Michael M. Miyamoto, and Connie Mulligan, “A ree-Stage
Colonization Model for the Peopling of the Americas,” PLoS ONE
Journal of Biogeography
84.
a greater warming of the oceans prior to the Little Ice Age. is put more energy into
the oceans, which enhanced evaporation and put more moisture into the atmosphere.
Second, the Maunder Minimum in sunspot activity, which occurred from 1645 to
1715, reduced the sun’s energy output.” Snook, Ice Age Extinction, 39. More detail is
available on pp. 118–23. Of interest to Latter-day Saint readers is 1816, the “year with-
-
tion. e resulting third year of crop failure prompted the Joseph Smith Sr. family to
Palmyra: Connecting the Restoration’s Witnesses,” in Prelude to the Restoration: From
Apostasy to the Restored Church: e 33rd Annual Sidney B. Sperry Symposium
E. Woods et al. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2004), 198–211.
M, R DNA63
Meldrum elsewhere insists that while evolution argues that “one
species can evolve into another species through several processes,
. . . the scriptures again seem to refute this evolutionary concept of
‘speciation,’ which science has never observed in the wild or been
able to replicate in a laboratory” (p. 99). Such sweeping claims have
long been a shibboleth of the young earth creationist movement, but
they are simply false. Laboratory speciation has been observed in a
variety of species, including single-celled organisms,⁸⁵ plants, worms,
and fruit flies. In-the-wild speciation has also been observed in many
cases, including butterflies,⁸⁶ mosquitoes, the apple maggot fly, fish,
birds, mice, rats, and rock wallabies.⁸⁷ One could well debate whether
such mechanisms are adequate to explain the totality of life’s diversity,
but to insist that such speciation events have never been seen is a
triumph of conviction over data.
I.E.2.d A pattern of behavior
ese brief examples demonstrate a phenomenon that occurs
on a much wider scale when Remnant through DNA tackles DNA
evidence—anything that supports the author’s model or reading of
scripture is praised and embraced. Any aspect of the same studies or
science that does not provide support is either le safely unmentioned
is or dismissed as inaccurate, implausible, or impossible.
I am not arguing that the data on these points must be accepted,
or that they are without error, or that there is no room for a genuine
debate about substantive issues. But they are the current scientific data.
If we discard or ignore data based on whether they match our religious
85.
Myths of Intelligent Design,” Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology
2010): 4–5.
86. Kenneth Miller discusses the case of Hedylepta in a creation-evolution debate titled
“Resolved: e Evolutionists Should Acknowledge Creation,” Firing Line, PBS, 4 December
87. Multiple examples with references to the primary literature are conveniently
available online in Joseph Boxhorn, “Observed Instances of Speciation,” www.talkori-
(accessed 3 May 2010).
64
convictions, we may be right—but we are not doing science. It is one
thing to claim that science cannot detect the things that it needs to, or
that scientists do not know enough to properly interpret what they see.
It is quite another to insist that the science actually supports a radically
different view of matters, to which all except the true believer are blind.
I.E.3 Why do people get the science wrong?
Why is Meldrum among the few able to draw the correct
conclusion? In the case of such matters as the age of the earth,
evolution, or the ice age, Meldrum’s answer is that other researchers
are blinded by ignorance, bias, or predetermined conclusions:
a priori assumption, made by the
modern scientific fields of archaeology and anthropology, that humans
of earlier times knew nothing of boats” (p. 100).⁸⁸
affected the results” (p. 101).
are protected by disallowing honest challenge” (p. 102).
It is not surprising, then, that Meldrum uses identical reasoning
to explain why his geography and genetic theories regarding the Book
of Mormon have not been embraced by Latter-day Saints familiar
Stephens’s conclusion that “we probably never will find a genetic
88. is claim is either false or a gross oversimplification since most anthropologists
believe that Australia and New Guinea would have required settlement over 30–90 km of
open water well before the postulated Bering Strait migration to the Americas. See Max
of Australian and New Guinean Aborigines,” Genome Research
Richard G. Klein, e Human Career: Human Biological and Cultural Origins (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1989). ere is also a vigorous debate about the role of boats
in settling the Americas. See Majid Al-Suwaidi, “A Multi-disciplinary Study of Port Eliza
Cave Sediments and eir Implications for Human Coastal Migration” (master’s thesis,
Polynesia from at least 3,200 years ago by boat. See Manfred Kayser et al., “Melanesian
and Asian Origins of Polynesians: mtDNA and Y Chromosome Gradients Across the
Pacific,” Molecular Biology and Evolution
early peoples might have been dismissed out of hand, this is not the case now.
M, R DNA65
marker for the children of Lehi, for the children of Abraham, or even
for the ‘Children of God.’”⁸⁹ Writes Rod Meldrum:
ese two LDS scholars clearly believe that there will probably
never be any evidence to support either the Book of Mormon,
or the Bible, or even God’s creation of mankind, provided by
mtDNA analysis. What could be the underlying cause of this
disbelief? Why would we as LDS people think that no evi-
dence will be forthcoming? Are our beliefs true or are they
not? If they are true, why wouldn’t there be any evidence to
support this truth? (p. 24)
Remnant through DNA will apparently not accept that the
“underlying cause” for such a view is that these two geneticists
understand the evidence, its potential, and its limitations far better
than Rod Meldrum does. Evidence for the Book of Mormon and other
truths may well exist, but this does not mean that mtDNA evidence
must. Absence of evidence from mtDNA (especially when due to the
inherent limitations of that type of evidence) does not preclude evidence
from a variety of other sources. But Meldrum has an all-or-nothing
view—if our beliefs are true, there ought to be genetic evidence. He is
disappointed in these scholars, even though he admits that they and
others “have demonstrated a high level of understanding of the genetic
and scientific principles and fields” (p. 24). He explains the failure of
Latter-day Saint scholars to embrace his findings for the same reasons
that scientists persist in believing in ice ages and an old earth:
mock, disapprove, or laugh at it” (p. 21).
89.
Journal of Book of
Mormon Studiese Book of Mormon and DNA Research:
Essays from the Farms Review and the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, ed. Daniel C.
Peterson
e text cited by Remnant through DNA on pages 23–24 is reportedly from the Peterson
reprint.
66
and expertise on the subject of genetic research, the arguments are
based on an underlying deep-rooted belief that the Book of Mormon
history occurred within the confines of Central, or Mesoamerica. is
belief has resulted in dismissal of potential evidence supporting the
Book of Mormon” (p. 87).
by dozens of highly educated individuals within the academic LDS
community, where a general consensus was finally thought to have
been reached cannot be underestimated. at this consensus may now
be seriously challenged by ‘outsiders’ may be unwelcomed by those
within it” (p. 87).
DNA cannot be used either to disprove, nor ‘prove’ or lend support
to, the Book of Mormon. Such a position then also creates a potential
predicament wherein evidence that could lend support to the claims
of the Book of Mormon, while not ‘proving it’ [i.e., the evidence that
Meldrum believes he has found but that others dispute], may be looked
upon as at odds with these scholarly conclusions. is may lead to
valid supportive evidence being overlooked, ignored, disregarded or
even aggressively and unfairly criticized by some who may feel that
their established conclusions are being challenged or discredited”
(p. 25).⁹⁰
Ironically, Meldrum seems to ignore the possibility that his
own reaction to the critique of his ideas on scientific or scriptural
grounds may stem from exactly the same psychodynamics. His beliefs
about the Book of Mormon and the necessity of DNA support lead
him to overlook, ignore, or disregard relevant evidence that clashes
with his fundamentalist expectations, while “aggressively and
unfairly” criticizing the Latter-day Saint scholars for “dismissing” or
“disparaging Joseph Smith” when they do not share his views. His
long amateur labors have been shown to be deeply flawed on multiple
grounds. Can this disappointment be underestimated, especially
90. is sentiment is repeated in almost identical language later on p. 45.
M, R DNA67
when coupled with feeling like an “outsider” without the training that
others have? Or is he immune to the faults he sees in others?
It is hoped that this research will reopen the discussion on
DNA evidence for Book of Mormon geography to allow a new
model to be seriously considered, rather than simply attempt-
to be expected from those who have put their reputations on
the line for the Mesoamerica theories? (p. 87)
Meldrum insists that he only wants a serious discussion of models,
though he began the discussion years ago by claiming that those who
disagreed with him were producing bad fruit because they dismissed
and disparaged Joseph Smith. Over a year ago, an extensive written
review of the scientific and scriptural difficulties with his model was
prepared and presented to him privately before its publication. He has
yet to reply as he promised to, and Remnant through DNA has done little
to address the many defects identified.⁹¹ As one who helped prepare and
organize that review of his theory, I can assure him that we took his
model very seriously—and found it wanting in virtually every respect. I
can also assure him that I have never given a speech or written a paper
advocating a Mesoamerican geography, or any other geography. In the
interests of disclosure, I will say that my interests have always tended to
focus on internal models based on the text. I have relatively little interest
in placing the setting of the Book of Mormon narrative in a specific
real-world site. I have no reputation in the field of Book of Mormon
geography and nothing to lose by having the Mesoamerican model
(or any other) shown to be false. I would be delighted if DNA evidence
confirmed the Book of Mormon account—but at present it does not,
and it would be dishonest of me to pretend otherwise.
Meldrum does not want those who study his model to attempt
to “discredit and criticize” it, but this is how science is done. Science
proceeds by an attempt to disprove hypotheses—if significant doubt
91. DNA Evidence for Book of
Mormon Geography
68
is cast on a claim, it is not accepted. If the claim withstands attempts
to disprove it, our confidence in it is strengthened.⁹² If Meldrum
does not entertain attempts at disproof, he is not doing science. He
recognizes this when he later writes that “it is . . . legitimate discourse
to question the position and offer counter ideas and suggestions, or
even offer information that refutes a particular position” (p. 150). He
claims to want others’ “help” to “transform the level of evidence and
excitement throughout the membership of the Church” (p. 87), but
he balks at that help or feedback if it is negative, despite his “inviting
all who find discrepancies to make them known so that they can be
corrected” (p. 163). And it is easy to understand why he won’t accept
in practice the feedback he welcomes in theory—because he insists
that if the Book of Mormon is true, such evidence must exist, and he
is convinced that he has found it. But if everything that is wrong with
his theory were corrected, there would be little le.
Meldrum decries those who “resort to name calling, character
assassination and questioning of knowledge, understanding, or
motives” (p. 149)—and yet, as we have seen, he questions the motives
and knowledge of those who disagree with him. While name calling
and character assassination are clearly inappropriate, it does not seem
to me that questioning whether someone has an adequate knowledge
base or understanding of scientific matters is inappropriate. If a
layperson on the street offered to perform surgery on us, wouldn’t
a reasonable question be whether that person had the knowledge
and understanding to do so? If an analysis of Meldrum’s work—or
any other scholar’s—demonstrates unfamiliarity with the necessary
material, we must be free to say so without being charged with
“character assassination.” (On the other hand, to argue that arguments
should be ignored simply because of a lack of formal training is
shown to be
fallacious, this can oen be readily explained by a lack of adequate
training or understanding.)
92. e classic exposition of this aspect of science is Karl Popper, e Logic of
Scientific Discovery
original 1934 work, Logik der Forschung.
M, R DNA69
When challenged about his use of the fraudulent “Michigan relics”
Please indicate what non-LDS scholarly journal article you are
referencing as relating to the authenticity of the Michigan arti-
facts? Or are you referring to the Mesoamerican theorists who
wrote in a BYU publication that they did their own study and
found them to be fakes? What are the chances of any artifact
getting an “authentic” label by these pseudo-scientists when
doing so would disprove their personal theories attempting to
link the Book of Mormon with Mesoamerica? Not likely.⁹³
It should be pointed out that those who have concluded that the
relics are fraudulent include both Latter-day Saint and non–Latter-
day Saint researchers, and many (if not most) have no stake in a
among the first of the “pseudo-scientists” to publish a paper debunking
⁹⁴ other papers were to follow.⁹⁵ e
most recent scientific examination of the Michigan relics was reported
by Richard B. Stamps in BYU Studies.⁹⁶ Meldrum’s Web site continues
93.
Geography, What’s your take on this lecture series?” Mormon Apologetics and Discussion
Board
php?showtopic=35020&st=20&p=1208425876&#entry1208425876 (accessed 3 May
2010). Although Meldrum was posting under a pseudonym, participants in the thread
in fact, Rod Meldrum. One wonders why he chose to hide his identity and praise his own
work in the third person.
94.
e American Antiquarian and Oriental Journal 33
(1911): 160–64.
95. American
Anthropologist e
American Antiquarian and Oriental Journal
e American Antiquarian and
Oriental Journal 15 (1894): 313.
96.
Savage Michigan Relics,” BYU Studies
relics, see Mark Ashurst-McGee, “Mormonism’s Encounter with the Michigan Relics,”
BYU Studies
70
to sell books that tout the Michigan artifacts as genuine evidence,⁹⁷ and
in an e-mail he talked about supposed God-inspired plans to build a
museum to foster their study.⁹⁸
“No one,” Meldrum tells us, “should condemn nor defend a scholar
in taking a position that may not seem to be in accordance with the
gospel” (p. 150). is is good advice. It is a pity that he does not take it.
Worry about their pet theories is not the only motive attributed
to those who disagree with Meldrum. Some have more base motives:
Nearly 100% of the publications, websites, symposia and tours
are steeped in Mesoamerican archaeology, ruins, culture, art
and history. . . . It further follows (and one should not find it
surprising) that for all of the above reasons there would be a
significant vested financial interest in the Mesoamerican region
as well. With all these facts on the table, it should become eas-
97. Among these is Edwin G. Goble and Wayne N. May, is Land: Zarahemla and
the Nephite Nation
Ed Goble has charged Meldrum with plagiarizing from this book in the creation of
the Michigan artifacts, see Brant A. Gardner, “is Idea: e ‘is Land’ Series and
the U.S.-Centric Reading of the Book of Mormon,” FARMS Review
Evidence for Book of
Mormon Geography
98. e relevant section reads: “ey have had many people contact them about
donating artifacts and they made contact with the University of Michigan about the pos-
sibility of obtaining the Milton R. Hunter collection [i.e., the Michigan relics] for display.
ey agreed upon verification that the artifacts would be held in a ‘secure’ location, such
as a museum. Shawn said that they would like to build the museum in the next 5–7 years.
world-renowned architect who told me he was working with a group who are building
a Conference Center in Nauvoo! He then told me about the 600 seat auditorium, the
meeting rooms, the 110 family suites, and . . . the MUSEUM! I asked him ‘What were
you planning to put into your museum?’ and he said . . . aer a short pause. . . . ‘Your
stuff!’ . . . Right then he was prompted and he said ‘We can make it [the basement of the
others are in the original]. Meldrum, promotional e-mail, 9 May 2008, www.fairblog.
M, R DNA71
ier for the reader to understand why so much acrimony arises
when an alternative paradigm is introduced. (p. 153)
Meldrum has here apparently granted himself an exception from his
rule that it is “unconscionable” to engage in (among other things)
that such financial issues make a difference, how can he be certain
that they do not influence him as well?
Unlike the PhD geneticists who doubt mtDNA’s ability to provide
support for the Book of Mormon, Meldrum makes his living from his
Book of Mormon theories. While there is doubtless something that
could be labeled a Mesoamerican “industry” in tour groups and the
FARMS Review are not part of
it—nor am I. Meldrum, by contrast, wrote that “it was clear that I was
going to have to leave [full-time employment] to work on these [Book
of Mormon] projects full time, but I wanted more of a ‘sign’ from the
Lord. So I had three big projects about to close . . . and I told the Lord
that if he wants me to make this project my #1 priority to please cause
that none of these jobs go through, but that if I was to stay . . . to let
at least one come in.”⁹⁹ Since Meldrum’s main source of income is
apparently the mtDNA project, which efforts he undertook because
of a “sign” from God, it would be inconsistent for him to claim that
financial motivations drive those who disagree with him while leaving
him untouched.
Meldrum’s coauthor and former business partner, Bruce H. Porter,
outlined the reasons for Meldrum’s business split from Porter, Wayne
to speak at his own conference, rather than the partners’ conference,
reportedly foundered on “questions over sharing profits”: “[Meldrum]
felt that he needed to pull away from that company [ldspromisedland.
com] because he could make more money doing it on his own. And
that was a business decision that he made. . . . But it’s what Rod does
for a living, and everybody has a right to earn a living.”¹⁰⁰
99.
truth-will-out-at-last (accessed 24 March 2010).
100. Bruce H. Porter, as cited in Michael De Groote, “Mormon geography conferences
to compete this weekend.” e phrase “questions over sharing profits” is De Groote’s.
72
By May 2008, Meldrum’s Web site was claiming that he had
shipping.¹⁰¹¹⁰² ough
Remnant through DNA discusses how Meldrum began by “sharing
his research in free presentations done at his own expense” (p. v), as
of November 2009 registration for the “Southeastern Idaho Regional
¹⁰³
¹⁰⁴ sold out with “over
four hundred in attendance.”¹⁰⁵ Meldrum’s solo conference in April
¹⁰⁶
Blaming disagreement with Meldrum’s models on financial
motivation is not new. When his North American geography
was critiqued via a quote from John L. Lund—an advocate of a
Mesoamerican model—Meldrum wrote, “Dr. Lund needs to spend
more time on research and less time taking gullible tourists on
101.
take on this lecture series?” Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board, post nos. 48 and
post&p=1208426324 (accessed 5 May 2010).
102.
on Book of Mormon DNA. I was not involved in its production. Meldrum has charged
-
May 2010).
103. Rod Meldrum, “Upcoming presentations, seminar series, retreats, symposiums,
conferences and tours,”
(accessed 5 May 2010).
104.
Prophecies National Conference,” bulk e-mail, 29 September 2009, copy in my pos-
105.
Prophecies National Conference,” bulk e-mail, 8 October 2009, copy in my possession.
106.
Conferences in April?” bulk e-mail, 20 March 2010, copy in my possession.
M, R DNA73
‘Book of Mormon’ tours in Mesoamerica it would appear.”¹⁰⁷ Despite
this condemnation of such mercenary behavior (which, as we are
apparently meant to conclude, blinds Lund and the gullible to his
errors), by May 2008 Meldrum’s Web site was offering “e Ultimate
American geography.¹⁰⁸
occupancy.¹⁰⁹ Apparently, leading tours is only a problem if one is a
Mesoamerican theorist.
Meldrum cannot assert that these facts are inapplicable to his case
and theory without conceding that he has attempted to poison the
well for his readers against those who disagree with him.
I.F Summary
In sum, it is upon two convictions that Meldrum builds his
theory: (1) the Book of Mormon is a true historical record, so genetic
that postulates a creative period greater than seven thousand years, or
humans prior to 4000 , is unscriptural and false. And any scholar
who disputes these claims is uninformed, blinded by convention and
false science, or motivated by pride or profit.¹¹⁰
Part II—e Genetic Argument
I believe it is good to investigate and prove all principles that
come before me. Prove all things, hold fast that which is good,
107.
Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board, 13 May 2008, www.mormonapologetics.
e original posting had the word gullible, but it was removed sometime aer 2 June
2008.
108.
evidence.org (update of 14 May 2008), copy in my possession.
109.
110. A similar claim of financial bias is made by Meldrum’s sometime coauthor and
business partner, Bruce Porter: “Most of the people fighting it [Meldrum and Porter’s
ideas] are people who have something to lose financially or by reputation.” Kristen
Moulton, “Book of Mormon geography stirring controversy,” Salt Lake Tribune, 25
74
and reject that which is evil, no matter what guise it may come
in. I think if we, as “Mormons,” hold principles that cannot
be sustained by the Scriptures and by good sound reason and
philosophy, the quicker we part with them the better, no mat-
ter who believes in them or who does not. In every principle
presented to us, our first inquiry should be, “Is it true?” “Does
it emanate from God?” If He is its Author it can be sustained
just as much as any other truth in natural philosophy [i.e., sci-
as any other error. Hence upon all such matters we wish to go
¹¹¹
I now turn to the core of Remnant through DNA’s argument for a
genetic signal that supports the Book of Mormon account. Meldrum
makes several claims:
A. Book of Mormon prophecies promise that a detectable
genetic signal from Lehi’s group would persist to the
present day.
B. e Book of Mormon account presents a scenario under
which a small genetic signal from the Middle East would
persist and remain detectable.
C. A DNA marker (haplogroup X2) that ties Amerindians to
the Middle East has been found, concentrated among the
Algonquin language group.
D. e genetic evidence actually suggests that the marker
originated in Lehi’s time (2,600 years ago) rather than over
10,000 years ago as concluded by conventional science.
I will examine each of these claims in turn. Not one is viable.
II.A Does the Book of Mormon Require a Detectable Genetic
Signature?
As we saw earlier, Meldrum insists that Latter-day Saint genetics
experts have ignored the fact that the Book of Mormon prophesies that
a latter-day remnant of Israel would persist in the New World (p. 46).
111. Journal of Discourses, 13:15.
M, R DNA75
He extends this claim further, writing that the remnant ought to be
genetically detectable (pp. 3, 24). is expectation is fatally flawed and
demonstrates a naive and mistaken conflation of two concepts: literal
descent and genetic evidence of literal descent.
II.A.1 e scriptural argument
Meldrum argues that “there will be a remnant of the House of
Israel le upon the Promised Land in the latter days. . . . is is why
an understanding of the prophecies and promises are so incredibly
important” (p. 46, emphasis in original). He appeals to “at least 17
verses in the Book of Mormon that specifically and undeniably state
that there will be a remaining ‘remnant’ of the House of Israel in the
latter days” (p. 46). No Latter-day Saint researcher, to my knowledge,
denies this theme in the Book of Mormon. But five claims (pp. 46–47,
considered below) that Meldrum then makes demonstrate that he
understands neither the genetics nor the scriptures he invokes.
Claim #1: “Is it possible for the ‘remnant’ of the ‘House of Israel’
to be a group that is not in any way genetically related to the lineage of
the house of Israel?” (p. 46).
Response:
related, we do not carry genetic markers. I am related to all my male
ancestors, but I do not carry a single one of their mtDNA markers
since these are passed on only by women. Any man will hit a genetic
woman will lose any mtDNA markers that she gives to her sons. Such
evidence disappears forever within a single generation.
If we consider the other genes carried on nuclear chromosomes,
the situation is little better. One has a 50 percent chance of getting a
somatic nuclear DNA marker¹¹² from a given parent, and the chance
112. Somatic DNA refers to all DNA in the nucleus except the sex chromosomes (X
a Y from their father. Despite having two copies of chromosome X, the cells of female
mammals (including humans) inactivate one copy of the X chromosome via a process
called “lyonization.” us, sex chromosomes have patterns of inheritance in both sexes
review.
76
of a marker being passed on to each subsequent generation is likewise
50 percent. us, although I am clearly related to my grandfather, I
have only a 25 percent chance (½ x ½ = ¼) of having his marker at
a given nuclear DNA site. I am genetically related to him, but this
does not mean that I will have a genetic marker that proves it. e
chance of having a given marker drops with each generation, yet I am
just as much a “remnant” of the many from whom I have no markers.
is is explained in great detail for the nonexpert in one of Meldrum’s
from an ancestor only 30 generations back (about one thousand years
ago) is “1 in 10,737,417,000”—and Lehi would be two and half times
further back than that. Does this mean, then, that the geneticist is
not a “remnant” of all these ancestors? “Not at all! I am a direct lineal
descendant [from a given ancestor] as much as I am from any other of
my ancestors of that era.”¹¹³
us, we must not make the mistake of assuming (as Meldrum
does) that having a direct, lineal connection means there will be any
genetic evidence of that connection.
Claim #2: “In other words, is it possible for a group that has no
genetic link to Lehi, Joseph, Abraham or Shem to also be considered
to be a ‘seed’ or ‘remnant’ of the house of Israel?” (p. 46).
Response: ere is no genetic marker at a given site for virtually
all ancestors. One does not cease to be a direct descendant simply
genetic
descendants is redundant—all descent is genetic since by definition
we pass DNA on to our descendants. But that certainly does not mean
that all descendants will show a given genetic marker, especially aer
many generations. Such evidence is the exception, not the rule. Genes
are not “blended”—they are an either-or proposition. Either one
passes a given gene on, or one does not. If not, it is gone forever from
the lineage.
Meldrum even cites material from John Butler, who points out
that “the majority of the people living today in Iceland had ancestors
113.
on p. 41.
M, R DNA77
living only 150 years ago that could not be detected based on the
Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA tests being performed,”
despite the fact that the ancestors clearly existed.¹¹⁴ is is an
excellent—but not isolated—example of Meldrum’s tendency to quote
something that supports one aspect of his argument, only to ignore
the same fact and argument elsewhere when it proves inconvenient
for his DNA theories.
Current LDS Church leaders are also clear that the religious
and theological concern with lineage has little to do with detectable
genetic descent and much to do with covenants. Elder Dallin H. Oaks
cited the Church’s handbook for patriarchs at a worldwide leadership
training meeting during which he discussed “this vital subject” of
lineage:
“e patriarch is to discern and declare a person’s lineage
through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. e declaration
of lineage is not determined by a person’s race or nationality.
Because of the scattering of Israel among all nations of the
earth, the lineage of Israel is found in people of most races and
nationalities.” Note that the patriarch does not assign lineage.
He declares it by inspiration. “In declaring lineage, the patri-
arch identifies the tribe of Israel through which the person
will receive his or her blessings. e patriarch also outlines the
special promises and blessings the person may receive through
that lineage. . . . Because the tribes of Israel have intermixed
with one another, most people are of mixed lineage. Even fam-
ily members can be of mixed lineage, and occasionally children
of the same parents receive patriarchal blessings that declare
their lineage to be from different tribes.” ese important teach-
ings clarify that a declaration of lineage is not a scientific pro-
nouncement or an identification of genetic inheritance. A decla-
ration of lineage is representative of larger and more important
things. When a patriarch declares lineage, he is identifying “the
114.
DNA Research,” FARMS Review
Remnant through DNA. In the quotation above, Meldrum’s emphasis has been omitted.
78
tribe of Israel through which the person will receive his or her
blessings.” is declaration concerns the government of the
kingdom of God, not the nature of the blood or the composition
of the genes of the person being blessed.¹¹⁵
e scriptures and the church are concerned about “larger and more
important things” than genetic markers.
Claim #3: “When the scriptures state that this remnant will not
be completely destroyed, ‘according to the flesh’ how can that mean
anything other than a literal remnant that has in their bodies (their
flesh) the actual blood lineage of the house of Israel?” (p. 46).
Response: Again, it should be clear that one can be a literal
(“according to the flesh”) descendant without carrying DNA markers.
“Blood lineage” has no clear genetic analogue—one can be of direct
descent from an individual yet share none of the individual’s genetic
markers. e more generations that pass, the more this possibility
approaches a virtual certainty.
Claim #4: “How are the prophecies regarding the remnants
coming to a knowledge that they are ‘descendants of the Jews’ possibly
going to be fulfilled if they have absolutely no genetic indication of
having come from these lineages”? (p. 47).
Response: is is an extraordinary question. e suggestion
seems to be that the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon prophecy
hinges on whether we can find “genetic indication[s]” of a tie to Jews.¹¹⁶
is misses the point spectacularly—Nephi’s claim is that the Book of
Mormon itself will provide the evidence and proof needed to convince
the scattered seed of Lehi that they are descendants of the Jews. Nephi
taught that aer the Bible reached the remnant, “I beheld other books,
which came forth by the power of the Lamb, from the Gentiles unto
them, unto the convincing of the Gentiles and the remnant of the seed
115. Dallin H. Oaks, “Patriarchal Blessings,” in Worldwide Leadership Training
Meeting: e Patriarch, 8 January 2005 (Salt Lake City: e Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, 2005), 7–8, emphasis added.
116. It is also worth remembering that Lehi was not a Jew, as Meldrum is well aware.
Lehi and Ishmael were likely from Manasseh and Ephraim, respectively (p. 12). ere
should be caution, then, in speaking of “Jews” too loosely.
M, R DNA79
of my brethren, and also the Jews who were scattered upon all the face
of the earth, that the records of the prophets and of the twelve apostles
of the Lamb are true” (1 Nephi 13:39). He explained to his confused
brothers that “in the latter days, when our seed shall have dwindled
in unbelief, . . . then shall the fulness of the gospel of the Messiah
come unto the Gentiles, and from the Gentiles unto the remnant of
our seed—and at that day shall the remnant of our seed know that
they are of the house of Israel, and that they are the covenant people
of their forefathers, and also to the knowledge of the gospel of their
Redeemer” (1 Nephi 15:13–14, emphasis added).
Clearly, once the “fulness of the gospel”—which surely came with
the revelation of the Book of Mormon—comes to the remnant, then
“in that day” they will “know that they are of the house of Israel”
not just for the Lehite remnant “but also of all the house of Israel”
(1 Nephi 15:18).
Meldrum invokes these verses later, arguing that they describe
“a distinguishing or defining moment for the remnant, and must
indicate a genetic link to this lineage. As discussed earlier, how will
the Gentiles find out and then let the remnant know that they are
‘of the house of Israel’ without genetic evidence?” (p. 51). In context,
however, it is clear that the preaching of the gospel via the Book of
Mormon accomplishes this revelation of covenant ancestry—but
Meldrum insists that this cannot be done without “genetic evidence”
and that these scriptures “must indicate” genetic links.
Claim #5: “Of course the Book of Mormon could be how they
would know, but the Book of Mormon has been in print for many
years now, so is there a population that knows with complete surety
that they are, in fact, of the Jews?” (p. 47).
Response: is is another example of missing the point completely.
complete surety.’ It consists of those who have accepted the witness of
the Book of Mormon through the power of the Holy Spirit, which is
brought to them by ‘the Gentiles.’ ese Lehites did not and do not
80
need to wait for population genetics to tell them that of which the
Book of Mormon bears eloquent witness.” As Elder C. Scott Grow
taught in general conference, “e Book of Mormon is its own witness
to the people of Latin America and of all nations. Its very coming
forth in these latter days bears witness that God has once again begun
to gather scattered Israel.”¹¹⁷
Claim #5 is also troubling because Meldrum insists, “I do not
claim to know that [my] proposed theory is true” (p. 5) and “no matter
how far these ideas progress, they will always remain in the realm
of theory until the Lord makes the truth known” (p. 4). Despite this
disclaimer, he is here concluding quite forcefully that the production
of the Book of Mormon record itself—and, one presumes, the witness
that attends it—is not sufficient because there is no population that
yet “knows with complete surety” about their connection to Israel
(emphasis added). His DNA theory is to do what the Book of Mormon
indicate that there must be enough of a genetic signature remaining
within the remnant or seed of Jacob to positively identify them as
being of the house of Israel” (p. 47).
As we have seen, “these scriptures” do nothing of the sort, and the
science makes the expectation that they would or could dubious. e
verse prior to 2 Nephi 30:4 even gives us the answer: “aer the book of
which I have spoken shall come forth, and be written unto the Gentiles,
and sealed up again unto the Lord, there shall be many which shall
unto the remnant of our seed.” Meldrum even cites (and italicizes)
this verse later, but still the quest for DNA evidence continues. It does
not seem that Meldrum regards the Book of Mormon’s production as
sufficient, since he concludes the chapter by quoting 2 Nephi 9:53 and
then writing the following:
When this happens they will [future tense] simultaneously
embrace the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. . . . Surely this
117. C. Scott Grow, “e Book of Mormon, the Instrument to Gather Scattered Israel,”
Ensign, November 2005, 35, emphasis in original.
M, R DNA81
will be [future] a glorious time in the lives of all those who
may also be partakers of the special blessing available through
this lineage by living up to the covenants we have made [past
tense] in the gospel. (p. 58)
Meldrum does not seem to consider that this process is and has been
a glorious time in the lives of those of the remnant who have already
accepted the evidence that God promised—the Book of Mormon. One
begins to wonder if he believes his book will bring this future about.¹¹⁸
Presidency have offered numerous prayers at temple dedications from
Canada to Argentina in which they declare the local Saints to be
descendants of Lehi. It does not appear that the leaders of the church
regard Lehi’s descendants to be restricted to the American Northeast,
as Meldrum does.
We can see now why Meldrum considers his theory so important.
He is convinced that the Book of Mormon itself virtually requires this
type of proof, which up until now has been unavailable, and “these
honest questions must be addressed if we believe in the truthfulness
of prophecy and the Book of Mormon” (p. 47, emphasis added). is is
dangerous, fundamentalist ground for his readers, especially if these
erroneous expectations cannot be satisfied. And such worries are
utterly unnecessary, given what modern prophets and the scriptures
tell us.
II.A.2 Are there no other options?
Meldrum then asks, “What other method is available to
substantiate the claims of the Book of Mormon?” (p. 47). He offers a
118.
views: “[My wife] and I . . . no longer doubt the validity of [the] work in which we are
engaged. . . . is information will go out to ‘millions’ who will be touched by the work,
and . . . this will ‘embolden’ the saints to open their mouths and declare anew the truth-
fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ so that millions will find and enter his kingdom!”
will-out-at-last (accessed 24 March 2010).
82
superficial examination of “archaeology” or “linguistics” as potential
evidence but quickly concludes that these methods are of no help
for his purposes (pp. 47–48). It is again apparent that he regards the
Book of Mormon itself as insufficient for the task. He summarizes
his view that “the most likely method for ‘the Gentiles’ to come to
a knowledge that Native Americans somewhere in the Americas are
literal descendants of the house of Israel is by demonstrating possible
connections between their DNA lineages” (p. 48). e goal posts have
now been moved, for the connection must be demonstrated to “the
Gentiles” instead of the seed or remnant itself. We are again assured
that this is not to make things “proven,” but only to make a “good
case” (p. 48)—but given what we are told is at stake, we are presumably
supposed to hope that Meldrum can deliver since the Gentiles are to
“know” with “complete surety.” It is not clear why any evidence other
than the Holy Spirit might be expected or required, nor are any of the
thousands of pages adduced by Latter-day Saint scholars as providing
evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon’s antiquity considered. If the
Book of Mormon’s antiquity is accepted, then its claims about Lehite
ancestry must also be accepted since Joseph Smith could not have
translated an ancient record unaided by God.
II.A.3 Pounding the point home
Meldrum’s erroneous expectations are largely repeated over the
next several pages. I will not examine each in detail:
coming were literal descendants of Jacob. . . . ere should be no doubt
that there was a genetic remnant le at this point in Book of Mormon
history” (p. 32).
Ether 13:6–7] meant a literal genetic remnant based on genealogical
records, namely the Brass Plates” (pp. 48–49).
producing a living organism like unto its parent organism?” (p. 49).
M, R DNA83
indicated by distinctions made between a literal genetic lineage and
those adopted into it” (p. 50).
people that build up the New Jerusalem in North America” (p. 88).
All these quotations, and others, betray the basic misunderstanding:
Meldrum is convinced that if someone is a direct descendant, there
must be genetic evidence of that fact. (He is also mistaken if he
thinks “seeds”—of plants, animals, or humans—are usually genetic
“replicas.” In sexually reproducing organisms, which include most
plants, offspring are not replicas of their parents or anyone else. e
loss of genetic markers begins with the first generation.)
And since the scriptures oen speak of direct literal descendants,
Meldrum insists there must therefore be genetic evidence: “ere
should be some sort of genetic evidence for this remnant to be found. It
has been prophesied not to have been destroyed” (p. 53). e remnant
is, of course, not destroyed, but any genetic sign almost certainly has
been (see section II.B for further discussion).
Loss of the genetic signal is, for Meldrum, not an option. “When
a later lineage has been sufficiently diluted so that there remains no
genetic indication linking them back to a particular ancestor, is not this
lineage then for all intents and purposes genetically ‘destroyed’?” (p. 53).
In a word, no. If by “genetically destroyed” one means “lacking genetic
evidence,” then certainly if one lacks genetic evidence then one lacks
genetic evidence. But the vast majority of lineages exist without genetic
proof, just as I remain a guaranteed genetic descendant of my great-
grandfather thirty generations ago as surely as of my father. Meldrum
repeatedly conflates the scriptural promise of “literal seed” with the
idea of “genetically proven link,” when the two are light-years apart.
e confusion then increases:
At what point can it be determined that a descendant’s DNA
has been sufficiently diluted to consider them to no longer
be linked with a particular ancestry? A potential answer
is that this lineage is “destroyed” genetically when it is no
84
longer discernable through DNA sequencing and analy-
sis, which the Lord certainly knew would occur in connec-
tion with the prophesies and promises given to the “remnant
Lamanites.” (p. 53)
is potential definition is Meldrum’s alone—no geneticist, no
genealogist, no prophet, and certainly no scriptural author claims that
without a DNA signal, one is no longer a “remnant” or descendant.
Indeed, the very idea of a remnant suggests the small, scrappy remains
of something that was originally much more robust and intact. And
given that Meldrum points out that at least 94 percent of the pre-
Columbian inhabitants perished from European disease aer contact
(p. 41), the remaining 6 percent surely qualify as a “remnant” by any
standard.
II.A.4 Conclusion
Once this key mistake about the nature of ancestry and DNA is
made, everything else follows:
e most reasonable interpretation of these prophesies is that
somewhere a genetic lineage will be found that can be traced
back to the lineages of this prophetic line from Shem. If no
such lineage is found, how could this prophecy and promise
then be fulfilled? e only other method would be through
direct revelation on the matter from the Lord. (p. 53)
Remnant rough DNA is tortured and illogical, and it violates both
what we know of population genetics and the scriptural text. We have
the direct revelation that is the “only other method”—the Book of
Mormon itself.
II.B Would Lehi’s Signature Persist?
Having claimed that we ought to expect a DNA signature,
Meldrum attempts to show that Lehi’s genetic signature would have
persisted. He notes that “the Book of Mormon gives at least two
excellent examples of genetic (or population) bottlenecks,” citing the
M, R DNA85
destruction of the Jaredites and Nephites (p. 37). His discussion of
these implications (pp. 37–44), however, omits an event whose effect
on Lehite DNA markers was identical to those caused by bottlenecks,
and likely even more severe—the founder effect of the initial Lehite
migration.¹¹⁹ Lehi and his party represented a very small, restricted
sample of the Middle Eastern genetics of their day that was placed into
a new environment.
Since Meldrum’s evidence all derives from mitochondrial DNA
(mtDNA), only female members of the party will leave any genetic
trace at all, since mtDNA is inherited by all children from the
mother only.¹²⁰ Only the mtDNA of Sariah and Ishmael’s wife (and
the wives of the sons of Ishmael if they are not Sariah’s children)¹²¹
will provide any evidence. us, only two to four individuals provide
the genetic “signal” of Lehi’s party relevant to Meldrum’s inquiry.
Meldrum argues (p. 62) that there are seven women and thus “seven
mtDNA lineages” (p. 123) since he counts the daughters of Lehi and
119. “A population may descend from only a small number of individuals either
because the population is initiated from a small number of individuals, causing a founder
effect, or because a small number of individuals survived . . . , resulting in a population
bottleneck” (emphasis in original). Philip W. Hedrick, Genetics of Populations, 3rd ed.
(Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2005), 342.
120.
121. Sidney B. Sperry and John L. Sorenson both opined that Ishmael’s sons were
Daughters Who Married the Sons of Ishmael?” Improvement Era
By Study and Also by Faith:
Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley, ed. John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks (Salt
Smith had said that the account in which Ishmael’s “sons married into Lehi’s family”
was contained in the lost 116 pages of the Book of Mormon translation (in Journal of
Discourses, 23:184). Sorenson argues that, given their apparent ages, the daughters could
-
tion against polygamy in Jacob 2 and the reputation that Lamanites had for monogamy),
or (b) they married aer the first wives died during the wilderness journey (pp. 190–91,
193). Another option is that they were older sisters, perhaps from a previous marriage of
Lehi’s. (Sorenson argues that they must have been younger than the brothers to properly
account for Sariah’s birth history, but this does not preclude them being from a separate
mother. If so, this would have increased the number of potential mtDNA donors, but this
is an awfully speculative reed to hang a theory upon.)
86
Ishmael—but clearly those daughters will inherit only their mothers’
Eastern DNA. is maximum of four people is an enormously tight
bottleneck, and Meldrum will go to great—though unpersuasive—
lengths to insist that such a tiny signal was not lost.
II.B.1 Can all Amerindians be Lehites?
Meldrum grants that the Lehi party did not arrive in an empty
continent (pp. 17–19), agrees that a limited geographical model
best matches the Book of Mormon text (pp. 19–22), and knows that
genetic markers can disappear in a relatively short time period (p. 27).
However, he sees this as part of the problem:
It must also be considered that if the remnants of the Lamanites
are only “among” the Native Americans, then there are Native
American groups which are in fact not descendants of Book
of Mormon peoples. Who are the remnants, and who are not?
Is it possible that DNA analysis may unlock the answer to this
question? (p. 20)
Here again, Meldrum does not demonstrate a grasp of even fairly
basic principles of population genetics. e essential concept is not
intuitively obvious, but it is well established. e key point is this:
over time, one’s descendants either vanish fairly quickly or expand
dramatically. Aer a certain point, if one has any descendants, then
all (or virtually all) people are descendants. Meldrum discusses the
recent change in the Book of Mormon’s modern introduction, which
alters the description of Lamanites from, as he quotes it, “principle
ancestors” of the Amerindians to “among the ancestors.” “e Church
has had no official position” on these matters, Meldrum tells us,
“until recently.” He then goes on to tell us that this change “clarifies
the position of the [B]rethren and answers the question of whether
all Native Americans are descendants of the Lamanites. Clearly they
are not” (pp. 16–17, emphasis in original). Meldrum claims that
this represents the Church’s “official position,” but his presumption
reads into the text things that are not there. He makes the erroneous
M, R DNA87
conclusion that being only partly of Lehite ancestry means that some
Amerindians do not share Lehi as an ancestor at all. But population
genetics makes this extraordinarily unlikely, as we will now see.
e issue of historical figures having descendants came to popular
attention with the runaway success of Dan Brown’s novel e Da Vinci
Code. In it Brown posits that Jesus was married and had children,
with descendants surviving to the present day. e novel provided a
springboard for one population geneticist to discuss the question of
whether Jesus could have descendants still living:
If anyone living today is descended from Jesus, so are most of
us on the planet. at absurd-sounding statement is an inevi-
table consequence of the strange and marvelous workings of
human ancestry. . . . Say you go back 120 generations, to about
the year 1000 B.C. According to the results presented in our
Nature paper,¹²² your ancestors then included everyone in
the world who has descendants living today. . . . If Jesus had
children (a big if, of course) and if those children had chil-
dren so that Jesus’ lineage survived, then Jesus is today the
two rather than three millenniums ago, but a person’s descen-
dants spread quickly from well-connected parts of the world
like the Middle East. . . . In addition to Jesus . . . we’re also all
descended from Julius Caesar, from Nefertiti, from Confucius
. . . and from any other historical figure who le behind lines
of descendants and lived earlier than a few thousand years
ago. Genetic tests can’t prove this, partly because current tests
look at just a small fraction of our DNA. But if we’re descended
from someone, we have at least a chance—even if it’s a very
small chance—of having their DNA in our cells. . . . People
may like to think that they’re descended from some ancient
group while other people are not. But human ancestry doesn’t
122.
common ancestry of all living humans,” Nature 431 (30 September 2004): 562–66, www.
88
work that way, since we all share the same ancestors just a few
millenniums ago.¹²³
If everyone now alive can share ancestry with someone who lived two
thousand years ago, then it becomes plausible—even overwhelmingly
likely—that Lehi would be an ancestor to virtually all modern-day
Amerindians, given that he lived half a millennium earlier than Christ.
Olsen elsewhere notes that all Europeans share a common ancestor
who was alive in 1400—only six hundred years ago!¹²⁴ Lehi need
not be the dominant or “principal” ancestor—but if there are any Lehi
descendants, then the vast majority of the pre-Columbian population
shared Lehi as an ancestor prior to contact. Meldrum misunderstands
a key distinction and then attributes his own views to “the brethren.”
II.B.2 Saving Lehi’s signal—the early years
It is a great irony that Meldrum has essentially created a problem
where one did not exist by insisting that “lineal descent” must mean
“shares genetic markers” when it clearly does not. He then claims that
a lineage introduced into the new world 2,600 years ago would likely
have only a small part of the Amerindians as its descendants, not most
or all of them. But this too is virtually impossible. And Meldrum also
claims that the Book of Mormon promises the eventual revelation
of scientifically proven genetic links when it does not. Having dug
himself and his reader into a deep hole, he now goes to extreme efforts
to get out.
Meldrum is aware that a small group like Lehi’s could disappear
into the larger hemisphere’s genetic milieu. But that conclusion is
unacceptable to him, and he insists that such a fate does not apply to
the Nephites (p. 27). He quotes 2 Nephi 5:5–6 about Nephi’s split from
Laman and Lemuel, but he does not accept the reading that “all those
123. Steve Olson, “Why We’re All Jesus’ Children,” Slate (daily Web magazine), 15
124. See citation and discussion in Matthew Roper, “Swimming in the Gene Pool:
Israelite Kinship Relations, Genes, and Genealogy,” FARMS Review
M, R DNA89
who would go with me” could refer to non-Lehite “others” who had
¹²⁵ Instead, he writes:
Could it not also be possible that the “others” Nephi takes
with him are simply those of his brothers’ families who are
righteous and desire to come along with Nephi’s more righ-
teous group? Why would we assume that none of the remain-
ing families had any among them that would want to leave [?]
. . . If there were other people who were “friendly” why would
Nephi feel such a need to leave? Why not join forces with the
other friendly group and cause the wicked brothers to leave?
(pp. 27–28)
is is certainly possible, but virtually anything is possible in some
sense. However, if Nephi leads the families of Zoram, Sam, his
sisters, Jacob, Joseph, and parts of the families of Laman, Lemuel,
and Ishmael, then he has virtually the entire Lehite party—only eight
known individuals remain (Laman, Lemuel, the sons of Ishmael, and
four spouses), plus any children who remain Lamanites. Why is Nephi
fleeing when he has the majority? Meldrum decides that “they chose
to leave the security of the combined group . . . [because] there was
either a lack of others [in the area] who may be hostile or there were
others, and they were ‘friendly’” (p. 28). But if these others are friendly,
then Nephi need not flee, because this will only increase the numbers
on Nephi’s side. So we are again back to the question of why someone
who has the majority is fleeing. It seems more plausible that there were
hostile non-Lehites as well, and so Nephi had to flee both his brothers
and the surrounding natives.
But Meldrum, arguing that Laman and Lemuel would not have
been able to co-opt the surrounding indigenous peoples, asks, “Why
would other people who presumably greatly outnumber Laman’s
group determine to take upon themselves the name of the oldest
125. On this point, Meldrum quotes Matthew Roper, “Nephi’s Neighbors: Book of
Mormon Peoples and Pre-Columbian Populations,” FARMS Review
He does not mention the seminal work by John L. Sorenson, “When Lehi’s Party Arrived
Journal of Book of Mormon Studies
90
brother of this small, rather insignificant group of most likely less than
100 souls?” (p. 28). If this is true, then again we have Nephi holding
the majority and still fleeing, which is strange. ere is also, we note,
no evidence that at this point the putative “others” began calling
themselves Lamanites, as that was the label that Nephi and his group
noted, Lehi’s group may have been able to quickly achieve positions
of prominence among the “others” because of their prestigious skills
such as metalworking and writing.¹²⁶
Matthew Roper noted that the scripture also indicates that the
Lamanites had already begun to mix with others at or near Nephi’s
departure:
Aer explaining how he and his people separated themselves
from Laman, Lemuel, the sons of Ishmael, and their people
and having told how the people of Nephi became established
in the land, Nephi quotes a prophecy of the Lord. “And cursed
shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord
spake it, and it was done” (2 Nephi 5:23). is prophecy antici-
pates future mixing and intermarriage with the Lamanites,
but the immediacy of Nephi’s personal observation that “the
Lord spake it, and it was done” suggests that the process was
already under way at the time Nephi le or very shortly aer
the separation. at is, unidentified people had, at this early
period, already joined with the Lamanites in their opposi-
tion to Nephi and his people and had become like them, and
Nephi saw this event as a fulfillment of the Lord’s prophecy.
Since Nephite dissensions are not explicitly mentioned until
several generations later, Nephi’s statement about unidenti-
fied peoples intermarrying with the Lamanites seems to indi-
cate the presence of other non-Lehite peoples who had joined
or were joining the Lamanites.¹²⁷
126. Gardner, Second Witness, 2:11–13, 91–107.
127. Roper, “Nephi’s Neighbors,” 121–22. is is another example of the answers to
Meldrum’s dilemmas being found in material that he cites.
M, R DNA91
But regardless of how one resolves the conundrums of Meldrum’s
the fundamental issue behind the belief that there were “others”
present. e textual clue in 2 Nephi 5 is part of the evidence, but it
is not the only bit, or the most important. John Sorenson set out the
parameters with which we must contend:
Let us at least start to bracket the possible growth in num-
bers [of Lehite populations] by setting an upper limit that is
at the edge of absurdity. Assume a birth rate twice as high as
in today’s “less developed countries,” a rate perhaps not even
attainable by any population. Let us also suppose no deaths at
all! Under those conditions, if the initial Nephite group was
comprised of twenty-four persons, as I calculate generously,
by the time of Jacob 2, they would have reached a population
of 330, of whom perhaps seventy would be adult males and
the same number adult females. Of course the unreality of
that number means we must work downward. Using a more
reasonable figure for the birth rate and factoring in deaths,
we see that the actual number of adults would be unlikely to
exceed half of what we first calculated—say, thirty-five males
and thirty-five females. Even that is far too large to satisfy
experts on the history of population growth.¹²⁸
Even if, to accommodate Meldrum’s reconstruction, we add a few
additional people to Nephi’s party while deducting them from
Laman’s, it will make little difference. Meldrum offers us what seems
an oand suggestion that Lehi’s group made up “most likely less than
100 souls,” but this demonstrates that he has not given this matter
leave with twenty-five people from the Lehite party, and that is a most
rosy estimate.
Sorenson also points out that by twenty-five years later there were
“wars” between the Lamanites and Nephites. Yet population growth
rates mean that without “others” added to the mix, Lehi would have
128. Sorenson, “When Lehi’s Party Arrived,” 3.
92
had around twenty adult male descendants.¹²⁹ Any deaths from these
“wars” would have curtailed future population levels even further,
worsening the problem. (It is also difficult to see battles between ten
men on a side as a “war.”)
As oen happens, Meldrum cites an author in one vein but fails
to mention other aspects of the author’s work that would provide
much of the information that readers of Remnant through DNA need.
James Smith’s article on Nephite demographics makes these same
of Nephi’s death, there was an average of twenty-five to thirty-five
living descendants from the initial Lehi group. e most optimistic
projections still provide only fiy to sixty-five people, and these must
be split between the Lamanites and Nephites.¹³⁰ My own calculations
show that if we double the known numbers in Nephi’s initial party
to twenty (probably too high), then at twenty years per generation
with a 1 percent annual growth rate (likely much too high),¹³¹ there
would still be no more than about one hundred people by the tenth
generation, circa 420 . Yet by 400 Jarom reported that the
Nephites had “multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of
the land,” having resisted the Lamanites “many times” and “fortified
[their] cities” (Jarom 1:7–8). It is hard to see fiy males doing all this,
or having even a single city to fortify.
Nephi also doesn’t seem to think that it is incongruous—not to
mention slightly ridiculous—that a few dozen of his people want him
129. Sorenson, “When Lehi’s Party Arrived,” 4, citing 2 Nephi 5:34. See also Sorenson’s
later estimate that Nephi’s party consisted of about eleven adults and thirteen chil-
dren from the original Lehite party. John L. Sorenson, Nephite Culture and Society, ed.
Matthew Sorenson Second
Witness, 2:88.
130. Smith, “Nephi’s Descendants?” 286.
131. e highest rate of world population growth ever seen was 2.2 percent in 1963.
I find it difficult to believe that premoderns like the Nephites could sustain even a
1 percent rate in the long term. is rate thus represents a reasonable “upper bound.” See
Sorenson, “When Lehi’s Party Arrived,” note 3, suggests that rates even as high as 6–7
per thousand per year (0.6–0.7 percent) would have been exceptional and not long main-
tained. James Smith’s computer model simulations are a more sophisticated approach to
this issue.
M, R DNA93
to be their king (2 Nephi 5:18). Enos describes “exceedingly many
prophets among us” (Enos 1:22). How many prophets can a population
of under a hundred produce, much less require?
It is the harsh realities of these figures that make it virtually certain
that the “Nephite” and “Lamanite” societies almost immediately
included members outside Lehi’s founding group. ere are other
textual clues, some that Meldrum notes and others that he ignores,
but even without such clues the presence of a large pool of “others” is
a virtual necessity. And that necessity almost immediately would have
led to a severe dilution of any Middle Eastern mtDNA markers carried
by the Lehite party’s women.
Meldrum’s argument is muddled at this juncture because he
concedes that even by the time of the events recorded in 2 Nephi 5
(between 588 and 559 ), “Lamanites were already mixing their ‘seed’
with others” (p. 29). If this is so, then it seems implausible to argue (as
Meldrum does) that there were no groups around who could have been
hostile to Nephi or friendly to Laman. Meldrum sees the introduction
of “others” into Lamanite circles as being required by the Book of
Jarom. He reasons that “the outnumbering by the Lamanites was due
to being either more prolific in child bearing, or . . . their numbers
p. 33). He then rules out greater Lamanite reproduction as a cause
on the grounds that “righteous people tend to place higher priority
on families and children, rather than personal pursuits” (p. 30). is
claim is presentist. In the premodern period, infant and maternal
mortality were high. Birth control was primitive or nonexistent and
life expectancy short. More children meant more laborers. ey also
served as insurance against disease, acted as providers in their parents’
old age, and at worst provided more fodder for military action. I too
doubt that Lamanites were more prolific than Nephites, but this
would be due to the cold realities of premodern life, not to the Nephite
embrace of a twenty-first-century Mormon family–centered ethic.
(Meldrum’s theory also ignores the prophetic praise given to Lamanite
3:7.) As Sorenson noted, “Unlike in modern times, anciently it was
94
not birth prevention that occupied couples’ minds but anxiety for the
bearing and rearing of children.”¹³² is is one of many examples in
merely plucks out what seems plausible to him, a modern reader.
that because “no mention of such a demographic discrepancy [between
Lamanites and Nephites as described in Jarom 1:6] was given in the
text at the time of their initial separation” (p. 30), this means that the
imbalance in numbers was a later development. As we previously
saw, if Nephi’s group was not outnumbered at the outset, their flight
makes little sense. Our information about Nephite history is most
sketchy at precisely this period since we have only the small plates.
modern printed pages, and the authors are clear that their focus is
almost exclusively religious, not political or military (Jacob 1:2). Most
of 2 Nephi following Nephi’s departure is dedicated to scriptural
commentary or prophecy, not history. Nephi himself notes that his
record of “wars and contentions” is found on his large plates, which
we again recall presents major demographic challenges to Meldrum’s
very little, especially since Nephi makes it clear what made him leave:
Genetics itself provides perhaps the greatest rebuke to Meldrum’s
theory—how do we overcome the problem of inbreeding? e initial
Lehi party provides genetic material from, at most, seven people:
Lehi and Sariah, Ishmael and his wife, Zoram, and potentially two
Ishmaelite wives. Yet Meldrum would have us believe that this tiny
genetic pool stayed isolated and homogeneous until the Nephites’
migration to Zarahemla, “for as many as 458 (588 to 130 ) years
this group seems to have honored their . . . commandments not to mix
themselves with others, thereby maintaining a very homogeneous
population” (p. 31). If we use a very conservative thirty years per
generation, this means that for at least fieen generations, the genes
of three males and at most four females were relentlessly crossbred.
132.
M, R DNA95
If we use a more standard twenty years, this represents twenty-three
generations. In conservation biology, animals with fewer than fiy
“effective members of the population” suffer “short-term inbreeding
depression,”¹³³
five hundred “effective” members are needed for long-term variability,
which for humans translates into a total population size between fieen
hundred and twenty-five hundred people.¹³⁴ e famously inbred
Spanish Hapsburg dynasty (with a much more extensive gene pool
and the chance for outside marriage partners) did very poorly over
only sixteen generations in about half the time for which Meldrum
isolates his Nephites ( 1516–1700), with the last heir dying impotent
and mentally retarded in 1700.¹³⁵ is does not seem a strategy that
would help the Nephites “prosper in the land.”
In Meldrum’s reconstruction, “once a substantial imbalance of
population and thus power had occurred, . . . the believing Nephites
move[d] out of the land of Nephi to the land of Zarahemla” (p. 30).
He believes, however, that prior to mixing with the more numerous
Mulekites, “the Nephite genetic group would have remained relatively
intact and would have retained to a large extent its genetic signatures”
(p. 31). is is the reason for Meldrum’s insistence on all these points,
but his solution does nothing to resolve the central demographic
issues in the early part of Nephite history or the catastrophic
medical consequences of sustained inbreeding, to say nothing of the
archaeological evidence that suggests that avoiding “others” would
133. Conservation
Biology, an Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective, ed. Michael E. Soulé and Bruce A.
Meets Population Genetics,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution
May 2010).
134.
Hawks et al., “Population Bottlenecks and Pleistocene Human Evolution,” Molecular
Biology and Evolution
135.
Inbreeding in the Extinction of a European Royal Dynasty,” PLoS ONE
96
have been virtually impossible anyway.¹³⁶
points, Remnant through DNA needed to address all of the arguments
raised by Sorenson and Smith and provide a more appealing solution
to them individually and collectively.¹³⁷
II.B.3 Saving Lehi’s signal—prohibition against intermarriage
Meldrum repeatedly insists that the covenant prohibition against
intermarriage would prevent the Nephites from mingling with the
“others” (pp. 28–30). In doing so, he leaves unmentioned the possibility
of conversion: there is no prohibition against marriage to a stranger
who joins the covenant. Matthew Roper has argued persuasively
that Jacob and Nephi invoke Isaiah (2 Nephi 6–10) precisely because
there are just such (non-Lehite) converts.¹³⁸
Meldrum appeals to Israelite practice as justification for its ideas
about Nephite exclusivity, he ignores what the cited sources say about
actual Israelite marriage behavior. Roper illustrates the extensive
intermixture of various peoples and races in and around Israel, citing
an author who concludes that “the presence of so many foreign men
could not help but lead to interbreeding with the Israelite women. . . .
have been common knowledge.”¹³⁹ Roper also cites John Bright:
We are not to suppose that the entity we call Israel was formed
and held together in the face of adversity exclusively, or even
the descent of all the tribes to the ancestor Jacob (Israel), and
this might lead one to suppose that Israel was in fact a kinship
unit. But kinship terminology is oen employed in the Bible to
express a social solidarity, a feeling of closeness, that actually
136. Sorenson, “When Lehi’s Party Arrived,” 8.
137. We could doubtless invoke divine miracle to overcome all these issues, but in
doing so we leave science behind and anything goes. We might as well claim that God
magicked the DNA into its present configuration.
138. Roper, “Nephi’s Neighbors,” 120–27.
139. Raphael Patai, e Myth of the Jewish Race, rev. ed. (Detroit: Wayne State
extensive discussion on pp. 132–42).
M, R DNA97
arose from other factors. Seldom in all of history has blood
kinship, or common racial stock or language, been the deter-
minative factor in the formation and preservation of larger
social and political units. What is more to the point, there is
abundant evidence that not all Israelites were in fact related
one to another by blood. . . . Speaking theologically, one might
view neither her first appearance nor her continued existence
can be accounted for in terms of blood kinship.¹⁴⁰
Meldrum sources Roper’s article (p. 17), but he does not engage these
points, and simply insists that the tiny Nephite band (with its even
tinier pool of genetic donors) persisted in essential genetic isolation
over nearly five hundred years, a feat that the much more numerous
Israelites did not accomplish.
It should not escape us that Roper’s suggestions—while perfectly
plausible, in keeping with Israelite history, and far more attractive
than the attendant demographic problems coupled with severe
inbreeding required by Meldrum’s model—cause exactly the problem
that Meldrum’s theory must avoid at all costs: rapid intermixture,
dilution, and probable loss of the precious Nephite genetic signal. And
so they are not options.
II.B.4 Saving Lehi’s signal—later Nephite history
Meldrum allows the Nephites to intermarry with the Mulekites
by 130 , but this does not help his model much. We are almost
completely ignorant of the composition of the Mulekite party. Given
that they were fleeing a military rout with a son of King Zedekiah, it
is not even clear that the Mulekite immigrants included any women
to contribute mtDNA. By the time they contact the Nephites (having
fled at almost the same time as Lehi), they have been well assimilated
into the milieu of the Western Hemisphere and are more than twice
as numerous as the Nephites. Given that they have abandoned their
Old World texts and religion (Omni 1:17), it seems foolish to think
140. John Bright, A History of Israel
cited in Roper, “Swimming the Gene Pool,” 139–40.
98
that their genetic signal would not likewise have been swamped by
intermarriage prior to meeting the Nephites.
Meldrum claims that the Mulekite submission to Mosiah’s
kingship indicates that “no wars or vying for leadership seems to have
occurred, but rather a simple acknowledgement of Mosiah’s right to
be king” (pp. 34–35). Unfortunately, the record contains numerous
Mulekite dissatisfaction with Nephite rule was a potent cause of war
and unrest.¹⁴¹
As for the Lamanites, though “they were intermixing with other
populations early on in their history, the Lamanites would still have
been passing their genetic lineages on to their descendants, so it is not
a case that their unique Israelite genetic signatures would have simply
disappeared” (p. 35). Yet Meldrum has quoted John Butler (p. 27) as
illustrating that exactly this type of “case” occurred in Iceland over a
period of only 150 years. Once again, data are invoked when useful
and then ignored elsewhere.
With the coming of Christ, Meldrum notes that the two groups
began to mingle, but despite there being no “Lamanites, nor any
manner of –ites” (4 Nephi 1:17), he argues that “it is not clear if
this also included intermarriage between groups or not” (p. 38).
Meldrum has insisted that it was religious prohibitions that kept the
Nephites from mingling with “others,” even to the point of effectively
restricting themselves to seven gene donors for nearly five hundred
years. Yet, with the people united in Christ with no distinctions, he
still is not ready to concede intermarriage even without the religious
prohibition—despite the fact that Christ’s fulfillment of the law of
Moses would have also removed many of these putative marriage
restrictions. “It will be assumed,” we are told, “that some limited
have still been unlikely” (p. 38). Assumptions cannot replace evidence
and analysis.
141.
Warfare in the Book of Mormon, ed. Stephen D. Ricks and William J. Hamblin (Salt Lake
M, R DNA99
With the disintegration of the 150 years of peace following Christ’s
coming, Meldrum notes that the titles “Nephite” and “Lamanite” may
refer more to their state as believers, but he still argues that
there is also no reason to assume that the majority of those
calling themselves “Nephites” were not, in large measure,
those who had previously shared that association. . . . e most
reasonable assumption is that each took upon themselves the
name that was most closely associated with their family heri-
tage, and naturally that would again separate them to a cer-
tain extent by their specific genetic lineages. (pp. 38–39)
us, even now, Meldrum keeps the Nephites generally isolated
genetically from the Lamanites, and everyone else. (He also assumes
without warrant that ethnic labels will correlate well with genetic
markers.)¹⁴² Strangely, his decision to isolate the later Nephites does
little to help his theory since he declares that “the final battles . . . then
involved to a larger degree the extermination of a higher percentage
of the ‘Nephite’ genetic markers than the ‘Lamanite’ ones” (p. 39).
So Meldrum is claiming that the Nephites remained generally intact
through their entire history and were decimated at Cumorah—none
of which strengthens his case for persisting Nephite genetic markers,
since he has kept them as isolated as he can manage throughout their
history and then has exterminated the majority.
It is also strange that Meldrum argues that mutations within each
lineage had become “fixed” (p. 39). I suspect Meldrum is misusing the
term fixed, which in population genetics describes a situation in which
a group previously had multiple varieties (alleles) of a gene but now
has lost all of the varieties but one. Every member of the population
now shares the same gene. His terminology implies that within only
one thousand years, the Nephites and Lamanites had managed to
develop genetic markers that distinguish them from each other—and
each group has one and only one allele at that site. It is not clear how
142. See the introduction, section B, “Scientific races?” for discussion of the difficul-
ties with this view.
100
he knows this or how he has derived a rate of fixation that is only 20
percent of the predicted value.¹⁴³
But, once again, if this claim is accepted, it still does not help his
case. e Nephite “fixed” allele will be almost exterminated and will
not be widespread in others because of the strict lack of interbreeding
that has been insisted upon at every turn. As we have seen, Meldrum
concedes that the Lamanites mixed early with the “others,” leading
to their skin curse and population explosion (pp. 29–30, 33)—but
we must not forget that in all likelihood this scenario eliminates any
Middle Eastern Lamanite-specific DNA markers.
Meldrum has thus succeeded in largely confining the putative
markers of interest to a line destined for near eradication. Even if the
supposed Nephite marker had survived (a proposition bordering on
absurdity given the scenario outlined), it now undergoes yet another
extreme bottleneck effect, and any survivors are (once again) in a sea of
others and Lamanites, without even an Israelite religious prohibition
to confine them to their own genetic clan.
II.B.5 A real world test
practical problems are insurmountable for Meldrum’s model. e real
¹⁴⁴
an isolated island in the south Atlantic, located approximately
discovered in 1506, the island was used as a garrison site until 1817,
when it acquired its first permanent residents—William Glass and
his wife. e 38-square-mile island contains only about three square
miles of habitable and arable land. Other donors to the gene pool
arrived between 1827 and 1908.
143. e “predicted time to fixation for a neutral, mitochondrial, heteroplasmic vari-
ant in humans . . . [is] approximately 200 generations,” which would require around
twenty-five years times two hundred, or five thousand years—far too long for the thou-
sand-year history of the Nephites. Daniel James White et al., “Revealing the Hidden
Complexities of mtDNA Inheritance,” Molecular Ecology
144.
Cunha Islanders,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology
thanks to James Stutz for helping me track down this and other papers.
M, R DNA101
By historical records it is known that fieen men and fieen
women were potential contributors to the island’s DNA pool. Despite
this, today mtDNA and nuclear DNA are found only from seven
women, while all fieen males have modern descendants. e other
eight women or their descendants have either “died or le the island,”
leaving no genetic trace.¹⁴⁵ (We are here reminded of the numerous
“dissensions” [e.g., Jarom 1:13] to the Lamanites, which would have
Cunha.) e implications of this finding are clear: despite a total of
fieen women with the opportunity to leave DNA markers behind,
less than half did so.¹⁴⁶ is occurred over a period of less than two
centuries and, like the study of Iceland cited by Butler (and referenced
by Meldrum, p. 27), illustrates the significant loss of mtDNA
information that can occur in short time frames.¹⁴⁷
da Cunha islanders did not have to cope with any “others” diluting
their signal, while the Lehites would have been surrounded by tens of
thousands at least.
II.B.6 Conclusion
is portion of Meldrum’s argument is a troubling mix of
misinformation, supposition, and special pleading. e author does
not appear to have a realistic idea about the likelihood of his genetic
scenarios, and he ironically makes his case worse by some of the
he apparently thinks that he has helped his case by continuing to
confine the Nephites to themselves as much as possible, when in fact
145.
146. A later analysis showed seven Y-chromosome markers from the potential fif-
European
Journal of Human Genetics
147. Agnar Helgason et al., “A Populationwide Coalescent Analysis of Icelandic
mtDNA Lineages than Y Chromosomes,” American Journal of Human Genetics
102
it would be far better to admit to a complete mixing, thus spreading
the Nephite marker as widely as possible to ensure its survival aer
Cumorah. Even that adjustment, however, could not save his model.
II.C Is ere an mtDNA Link between the Middle East and the
Americas?
Meldrum proceeds next to establish what we should be “looking
for” to meet the expectations that he has created. In an apparent
effort to discredit Mesoamerican models, he claims that “had the
Prophet thought his use of the term ‘Indians’ meant the descendants
of the Mayan culture in Mesoamerica, it seems odd that he would
not have distinguished them from the Indians with whom he was
intimately familiar. If the North American Indians were in fact not
the descendants of which he spoke, wouldn’t Joseph have indicated
so?” (p. 61) e question betrays two misconceptions. We have already
addressed the first with the observation that population genetics tells
us that virtually all Amerindians of Joseph Smith’s day would have
been descendants of Lehi (see section II.B). e second misconception
revolves around Joseph Smith’s view of such matters. In Joseph’s day,
Amerindians were thought of as a single discrete group. e idea that
the Maya, Apaches, and Blackfoot were different, distinct cultures
or populations would likely not have occurred to Joseph or his
contemporaries. Given that all Amerindians would have been Lehi’s
descendants by Joseph’s day, there was likewise no need for Joseph
to make such a distinction, or for the Lord to inspire him to do so.
Angelic messengers likewise would have had no need to make any such
distinction—all Amerindians, including those who lived near Joseph,
shared Lehi as an ancestor. “e notion that ‘the Indians’ constituted
a single ethnic entity,” notes Sorenson, “is a totally outdated one which
neither scholars nor lay people can justifiably believe nowadays.”¹⁴⁸
But in Joseph’s day this was the popular and scientific orthodoxy, as
Only a few early nineteenth-century writers suggested multi-
ple origins for the American Indians. e very term “Indian,”
148. Sorenson, “When Lehi’s Party Arrived,” 8.
M, R DNA103
concept of the native inhabitants of the Americas invented by
Europeans. “By classifying all these many peoples as Indians,”
writes Berkhofer, “whites categorized the variety of cultures
and societies as a single entity for the purposes of description
and analysis, thereby neglecting or playing down the social
and cultural diversity of Native Americans then—and now—
for the convenience of simplified understanding.¹⁴⁹
Joseph had neither cultural nor genetic reasons to make the distinction
that Meldrum feels he should have made. But the point that Joseph’s
local Amerindians were Lehites tells us nothing about their original
location or geography two and a half millennia earlier.
Undeterred by these considerations, Meldrum sets out to prove
that the mtDNA X2 marker is found in the Amerindians of the
modern northeastern United States. He then argues that this X2
marker is related to the Middle East and that it thus represents the
Lehites in their original location.
II.C.1 e discovery of X2 in America
e term haplogroup denotes a group of people sharing a similar
set of mutations on their mtDNA profile (called haplotype). ese
mutations accumulated gradually over time and independently across
the different mtDNA lineages found around the world. erefore, a
haplogroup can be used to identify both a specific group of humans
who share a common ancestor, as well as a particular geographic origin
where these ancestors lived thousands of years ago. Most Amerindians
are descendants of the ancestral haplogroups A, B, C, and D, which
ancestry is also shared with some people from northern and eastern
Asia (not all Asians descend from these four haplogroups). is
provides support for the theory that the principal colonization of the
Americas was likely the result of a human expansion that took place
across the now submerged Bering Strait land bridge. Developments in
149. Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon: Religious Solutions from
Columbus to Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1986), 8–9.
104
this area are described by Meldrum on pages 72–80. I will here briefly
summarize the story from my reading of the relevant papers.¹⁵⁰
Haplogroup X was first classified as one of the Native American
lineages in 1996, and at the time it was still unknown in northeast
Asia.¹⁵¹
Columbian human remains (as determined by carbon dating) were
found that included haplogroup X2.¹⁵² is finding confirmed X2 as
a genuine Native American haplogroup that could not be attributed
to post-contact admixture with European lineages. In that same year,
X2 was also located among the Altaian people of Central Asia, leading
some to conclude that this was indeed the source population for X2 in
America through another Beringian expansion.¹⁵³
II.C.2 Are all X2 created equal?
e matter did not, however, rest there. As Meldrum tells us, “In
the prestigious American Journal of Human Genetics” (p. 76), Reidla
and colleagues determined that X2 consisted of several subgroups.
at is, the descendants who shared X2 later split off from each other,
forming smaller sub-families,¹⁵⁴ designated as X2a, X2b, and so on.
Reidla designated Amerindian members of the X2 haplogroup the
150.
DNA Evidence for
Book of Mormon Geography
and clarification on these points.
151.
A Reappraisal,” American Journal of Human Genetics
e presence of haplogroup X in America (the Nuu-Chah-Nulth tribal group of British
Columbia, Canada) was reported in the scientific literature as early as 1991, but it was not
yet called haplogroup X. See Richard H. Ward et al., “Extensive Mitochondrial Diversity
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America 88 (1991): 8720–24.
152. Ripan S. Malhi, “Investigating Prehistoric Population Movements in North
America with Ancient and Modern mtDNA” (PhD diss., University of California, 2001).
153. ., “e Presence of Mitochondrial Haplogroup X in
Altaians from South Siberia,” American Journal of Human Genetics
154. Sometimes called “clades,” indicating that they are groups that consist of all
descendants (and only such descendants) of a common ancestor.
M, R DNA105
X2a subfamily. Altaians in Siberia were all in X2e.¹⁵⁵ is means that
the source of the Amerindian mtDNA marker had split off into its
own “family” well before the Altaians formed their own subfamily.
e Altaians could not be the source of X2 in North America.
Unmentioned at this stage are other conclusions from the
American Journal of Human Genetics, including that X2a’s arrival
in the Americas was “not later than 11,000” years ago.¹⁵⁶ Meldrum
refrains from discussing these issues at all. Even when his in-text
citations include such phrases as “might be indicative of an Upper
Paleolithic” (i.e., 40,000–10,000 years ago) or “around, or aer,
the LGM (Last Glacial Maximum [i.e., approx. 18,000 years ago]),”
his discussion ignores these completely (pp. 76–77).¹⁵⁷ e snippets
are le to one side. Issues of dating are placed in a later chapter and
are separated from the DNA discussion by a chapter on Meldrum’s
preferred geography. By the time dating is discussed, it is made to
seem a minor point only blocked by scientific dogmatism. (I treat the
dating issue below in section II.D.)
II.C.3 Some pre-Lehite remains may contain haplotype X
Meldrum is right to emphasize that since carbon-dated remains
from before Columbus contain haplogroup X, the presence of
haplogroup X in the Americas cannot be attributed to later European
155. Maere Reidla et al., “Origin and Diffusion of mtDNA Haplogroup X,” American
Journal of Human Genetics
156. Reidla et al., “Origin and Diffusion,” 1188.
157.
phrase about the “Last Glacial Maximum” (Meldrum, DNA Evidence, section 1, “DNA
Evidence”). He now includes the phrase, which is an improvement, though the data from
these papers are never discussed in his section on “DNA Dating” (pp. 93–128). On the
106
influence (p. 90). He ignores, however, that there may be similar
evidence¹⁵⁸ of haplogroup X from remains that date before Lehi.¹⁵⁹
II.C.4 Is X2a evidence of Lehi?
Meldrum concludes his discussion of X2 with a table that purports
to show all the things that are “verified” about the DNA evidence he
presents. e only aspect that is labeled as “not yet” verified is the
bc” (p. 91). How well do these claims match the evidence they claim
to summarize? We will examine each of the following claims: (a) X2
is “European DNA” and “correlates with Mediterranean lineages,”
(b) X2 is “verified to be ancient and existing at the time Lehi le
Jerusalem,” and (c) X2 is “DNA lineage from a Semitic population that
is associated with Native North American populations” and is “DNA
stemming from Jewish populations that is associated with Native
North American populations” (p. 91).
II.C.4.a Is X2 “European DNA” that “correlates with Mediterranean
lineages”?
Is the Amerindian marker “European”? Does it “correlate” with
the Mediterranean area? e answers depend on one’s definition. An
example may be helpful. Let us imagine that there are still a few native
speakers of Latin alive today in isolated pockets of Europe. But most
Europeans have since adopted the Romance languages descended
role in population genetics as Latin in this example. X2’s subfamilies
(X2a, X2b, X2c, and so forth) are the Romance languages. X2 is an
158. William W. Hauswirth et al., “Inter- and Intrapopulation Studies of Ancient
Humans,” Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences
S. Malhi, and David Glenn Smith, “Mitochondrial DNA Studies of Native Americans:
Conceptions and Misconceptions of the Population Prehistory of the Americas,”
Evolutionary Anthropology 12 (2003): 13.
159.
Perego, “e Book of Mormon and the Origin of Native Americans from a Maternally
Inherited DNA Standpoint,” in this issue of the FARMS Review.
M, R DNA107
ancestral marker that has since developed into a variety of separate
subfamilies, though it is possible for a present-day person to have the
initial X2 mutation and none of the subsequent mutations that make
a subfamily.¹⁶⁰ Members of the X1 haplogroup share an ever earlier
ancestor with X2.
ere are some clear similarities between the Romance
languages—they are obviously much more closely related to each
Latin, which got its start in the Italian peninsula. ere is a link to
Rome, if one goes back far enough in time and space, but this does not
Meldrum makes a similar mistake with the X2 lineages. It is true
that X2 is thought to have begun in the Mediterranean area. But the
X2a lineage is found only in Amerindians. Meldrum emphasizes X2a’s
uniqueness when he cites Latter-day Saint geneticist Ugo Perego’s
“very latest results in mtDNA research [that] reaffirm that haplogroup
X2a continues to be restricted to North America” (p. 78). Meldrum
emphasizes North America’s possession of X2a (pp. 79–80) because
he is determined to exclude Mesoamerica from the prize of having
Lehite descendants, the better to support his geographical theories.
Meldrum ignores, however, that if X2a is restricted to North America,
then it is not found in the Mediterranean or in Europe.¹⁶¹ (See section
II.B.1 above for a discussion of the genetic difficulties in restricting
Lehi’s modern-day descendants to a limited area of the hemisphere.)
160. Unclassified individuals or new subgroups are also sometimes placed in the X2*
“paragroup.” By analogy, one might categorize a newly discovered speaker as a “Latin-
related speaker” pending formal classification of the language as either Latin, a known
Romance language, or a new tongue.
161. Certainty about X2a being found only in the Americas may be premature. Perego
points out that recent work has identified “a small number of haplotypes carrying the
same diagnostic coding region mutation shared by the Native American X2a samples”
(Martina Kujanová et al., “Near Eastern Neolithic Genetic Input in a Small Oasis of the
Egyptian Western Desert,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology
placed in the X2* paragroup.
108
not X2a but X2e (p. 77). He rightly draws the reader’s attention to this
fact and does so because he does not want the Altaians to be mistaken
for a potential source of Amerindian X2 via the Beringian land bridge.
Meldrum then discards this very sensible caution when he
discusses the Druze. e Druze religious sect is highly endogamous
(its adherents tend to marry among themselves) and does not proselyte.
A 2008 study by Shlush and others found that approximately 7.7
percent of Druze were part of the X2 group.¹⁶² Meldrum reinforces
the link between the Druze and X2 by citing an article from 2007
that studied Saudi Arabian populations, including Druze.¹⁶³ His
citation notes that 27 percent of the Druze “belong[ed] to the minority
haplogroup X” (p. 81).¹⁶⁴ By now we should be suspicious when only
“haplogroup X” is referred to, since we are interested in something
more specific: Are these lineages X1 or X2? And if they are X2, are
they X2a or something else? As it turns out, “only two X1 and X2”
haplotypes were found among the Arabian Druze, which may reflect
a founder effect.¹⁶⁵ So some of these examples are not even necessarily
X2, much less X2a. e Israeli Druze also had members from X1a and
X1b, so an X1 group in Saudi Arabia is not surprising, but worth little
in establishing Meldrum’s claims.¹⁶⁶
Meldrum discusses the Druze matter extensively and quotes
several paragraphs from the 2008 article (pp. 80–82). He never tells his
readers, however, that the X2 groups to which the Druze belong do not
include X2a—they are X2b, X2e, X2f, and X2*.¹⁶⁷ So we are presented
162. Liran I. Shlush et al., “e Druze: A Population Genetic Refugium of the Near
East,” PLoS ONE
pone.0002105 (accessed 14 May 2010).
163. Khaled K. Abu-Amero et al., “Eurasian and African Mitochondrial DNA influ-
ences in the Saudi Arabian population,” BMC Evolutionary Biology 7 (1 March 2007),
164. e precise citation is Khaled K. Abu-Amero et al., “Eurasian and African
Mitochondrial DNA influences,” 8.
165. Abu-Amero et al., “Eurasian and African mitochondrial DNA influences,” 8. e
data in table 1 (p. 5) do not distinguish X haplotype subgroups by identity or percentage.
166. Shlush et al., “Druze,” 3.
167. Shlush et al., “Druze,” 3, 4 (fig. 1A, 1B). Note that the X2* paragroup indicates sam-
ples that do not match any currently known or designated haplogroup (including X2a).
M, R DNA109
with the curious spectacle of Meldrum insisting that X2e in Siberians
is “not . . . directly related to the Native American Haplogroup X
groups” (p. 77), while simultaneously invoking the present-day Druze
as evidence about Amerindians and Lehi—even though the Druze are
also X2e and other non-X2a groups.
e closest we come to being informed is when Meldrum argues
that “this quote states that in the history of the Druze, haplogroup
X lineages may have been enriched in their diversity, which could
help to explain any differences in the subgroups of lineage X” (p. 81).
Meldrum’s reader has no context for understanding this claim because
the author has never explained that different subfamilies of haplogroup
X exist in the Middle East when compared with America. Meldrum
apparently knows there are subtype differences but dismisses them
quickly and moves on, without the reader even knowing about them.
Does he fairly represent the quotation? Unfortunately not:
Our findings suggest that the Near East maternal genetic
landscape differed substantially in the past from its current
structure, and was enriched in diverse lineages of the mtDNA
X haplogroup. (p. 81)¹⁶⁸
In fact, the authors do not say that the Druze “may have been”
(Meldrum’s words, p. 81) enriched in diversity, but that they clearly
are so enriched. e authors claim that the Druze may represent “a
contemporary refugium of this past genetic landscape”¹⁶⁹—that is,
they are, in a sense, living “genetic fossils.” e claim is not, then, that
the Druze were somehow unique, but that they represent the type of
X2 diversity that used to fill the Middle East. But this in no way solves
Meldrum’s problem of Amerindian X2a differing from the Middle
Eastern X2 groups he cites.
Remnant through DNA saves the worst treatment of the Shlush
et al. study for last. e authors claim that the Druze offer “a sample
snapshot of the genetic landscape of the Near East prior to the modern
168. e citation is from Shlush et al., “Druze,” 7. I have omitted Meldrum’s extensive
italics. e emphasis here is my own.
169. Shlush et al., “Druze,” 7.
110
age.”¹⁷⁰ Meldrum inserts an interpretive note for his readers: “[1400
AD]” (p. 81). He repeats the error by claiming that “it has been proposed
that this population be used . . . as the ‘sample’ genetic population of
the Near East . . . prior to the modern age (roughly 1400 AD)” (p. 82).
e “modern age” mentioned by Shlush et al. is surely not the last
six hundred years! Population geneticists think in much longer spans
of time. e article discusses how the estimated times of the X1 and
X2 groups’ separation from their mother X haplogroup are “42,900 ±
18,100 and 17,900 ± 2,900 [years] respectively.”¹⁷¹ ey go even further
in providing a preemptive rebuke for Meldrum’s interpretation:
Mutation rates for the mtDNA coding region . . . are not con-
sistent with the possibility that this number of different cod-
ing region defined lineages within haplogroup X could have
resulted from the recent expansion of a . . . clade within the
past 1000 years. Rather this combination . . . reflects the pre-
vailing Near East genetic landscape . . . antedating the estab-
lishment of the Druze religion in [] 1017.¹⁷²
ey also note that the mathematical models used to make such
estimates assume continued gene flow between populations, which the
Druze clearly do not have. us, they caution, such models “would tend
to overestimate the migration rate, and underestimate the divergence
time”—which would push the time frame back even further.¹⁷³ ey
conclude by arguing that “it is thus likely that the global diversity
of this haplogroup evolved in the Near East and adjacent regions of
western Eurasia, during a long incubation period coinciding with and
following the most recent out of Africa expansion as dated by mtDNA
coalescence simulations”¹⁷⁴—that is, 80,000–150,000 years ago.¹⁷⁵ I
170. Shlush et al., “Druze,” 1, emphasis added.
171. Shlush et al., “Druze,” 6.
172. Shlush et al., “Druze,” 6, emphasis added.
173. Shlush et al., “Druze,” 7.
174. Shlush et al., “Druze,” 7.
175. Nature 416
(accessed 14 May 2010). e values are from p. 48, fig. 1.
M, R DNA111
am not claiming that these figures must be accepted, but we simply
cannot cull snippets of text about genetic relationships and ignore the
implications that the data bring with them. e figures would have to
be revised downward by a factor of at least thirty before a match with
Lehi becomes plausible.
Meldrum quotes the remark in the Shlush study about an “out of
Africa” expansion (migration) in the distant past but does not address
it (reference no. 40, p. 81). ere is no discussion of what it means in
the paper’s argument, and the reader is told that the “modern age”
referred to began only six hundred years ago. e inexperienced
reader may be buried under a mountain of impressive-sounding
conclusions from “detailed documentation in peer reviewed scientific
journals” (p. iii) and feel that this is both rigorous and unassailable
(as some of the book’s endorsements claim). Small wonder that it all
seems so convincing, because anything that doesn’t fit the model just
isn’t brought to the reader’s attention and properly contextualized.
II.C.4.b X2 is “ancient and existing at the time Lehi le”?
e foregoing discussion equips us to answer this question
easily: the X2 group was certainly ancient, and it certainly existed
by Lehi’s time. e difficulty, however, is that it is much too ancient.
e divergence into separate X2 subfamilies (X2a, X2b, etc.) began
long before Lehi. Lehi might have matched the modern Druze, but the
modern Druze do not match ancient or modern Amerindians. By this
point in Meldrum’s book, the dating issue has hardly been mentioned,
much less resolved. Yet it is listed as a successful “hit” for the model all
the same. (I take up Remnant through DNA’s treatment of the dating
issue in II.D below.)
II.C.4.c X2 is “ from a Semitic population” or “ from a Jewish
population”?
Having examined Meldrum’s treatment of the Druze, I was
briefly encouraged when he wrote that “there is one aspect of the
Druze population that may, however, be a little unsettling. ey are
not Jewish” (p. 82). But my hopes were soon dashed. “If the Druze
112
haplogroup X lineage is the source of the Native American haplogroup
X lineage, could their ancestry trace back to Jacob and Joseph . . . ?
answer the question immediately—of course Jacob and Joseph are
Druze ancestors! If Jacob and Joseph have any descendants at all, then
everyone on earth shares them as an ancestor by now (see section
II.B.1). But this does not mean that they are the source of haplogroup
X or that we have discovered an Israelite marker. Everyone on earth
is by now a descendant of Abraham, so clearly mtDNA haplogroups
cannot be used to identify Israel, since Abrahamic descendants are
found among all haplogroups.
Meldrum quotes a study on type II diabetes in Ashkenazi Jews, in
which X is “one of the 12 most prevalent mtDNA haplogroups.”¹⁷⁶ We
must remember that the presence of mere X is useless for our purposes,
but Meldrum regards it as further evidence supporting his theories.
He goes on to cite two more studies and notes that “the haplogroup
Jewish populations, albeit with differing sub-lineages represented by
haplogroup X2e” (p. 83, emphasis added). Once more the reader is
not told about the clear implications. e statement proves nothing
about a connection to Lehi. Meldrum’s use of the word albeit implies
that it is a minor matter when it is at the crux. Siberians with X2e are
apparently are, in Meldrum’s telling.
II.C.4 Conclusion
We are told in closing that “the significance of the correlations
between multiple Jewish and non-Jewish populations in the Levant
or Holy Land region with Native populations in North America
through mtDNA backed research cannot be mistaken by those with
176.
BMC Genomics 9 (29 April
Remnant through DNA, 83.
M, R DNA113
an understanding of the Book of Mormon history” (p. 85). is is, as
we have seen, simply not the case.
Meldrum concludes the chapter by finally mentioning that “Native
American haplogroup X2a is unique in that to date no matching
lineage in the Old World has been found” (p. 85). But he then appeals
to Latter-day Saint geneticist Ugo Perego in support of the claim that
“the Native American lineage is considered to be associated with the
Old World ‘branches’” (p. 85). Perego has been taken out of context.
As he explained to me,
ere is no doubt that X2 has an “Old World” origin, just as
A, B, C, and D do. Every mtDNA lineage in the world today
has “Old World” origins. ey then spread to the four corners
of the earth developing their own unique mutational motifs.
Everyone involved with population genetic studies accepts
that X2 has Ancient Near East origins, but X2a (and the newly
proposed X2g subbranch) have their own unique set of muta-
tions that are not shared with any of the known Old World X2
lineages. at is why I stated clearly that they do not cluster
with any Old World lineages.¹⁷⁷
Perego also notes that X2a’s entry into the Americas dates to
15,000–17,000 years ago (and believes his work has succeeded in
narrowing this range from the broader 13,500–19,000 years ago based
on archaeological, geologic, linguistic, and genetic data).¹⁷⁸ Had
Meldrum’s quotation of Perego continued to the end of the paragraph,
we would also have learned that “X2a was [likely] the founder
sequence” (i.e., the autochthonous form of the X2 sublineage)¹⁷⁹ for all
X2a mtDNAs found among North American peoples—but knowing
177.
178. Ugo A. Perego et al., “Distinctive Paleo-Indian Migration Routes from Beringia
Current Biology
2010).
179. “Autochthonous” lineages are those native to the area in which they are now found
(American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed., s.v. “authochthonous.”
114
that would show all the Druze and Jewish data to be useless for
Meldrum’s purposes.
as a Nephite marker:
Columbian Israelite migration to the Western Hemisphere? No.
explanation is too easy. e data seem to indicate that X was from an
ancient group twelve thousand years ago and that Lehi’s mtDNA has
disappeared.¹⁸⁰
Meldrum has heard all this because he attended Perego’s presentation.
I know because I saw him there. But his readers will not know, nor
does he make any effort to inform them.
II.D Does the mtDNA Marker Date from Lehi’s Era or Much Earlier?
Before tackling the dating issue, Meldrum detours into a
discussion of “a suitable location” for his Nephite DNA by discussing
the Hopewell Mound Builders. He finishes with the chart of impressive
“hits” that I have analyzed in section II.C (pp. 87–91). He seems
aware that the dating issue could be the Achilles’ heel—“the primary
remaining obstruction” (p. 93)—for his model, though as we have seen
his theory fails on multiple grounds even when we defer a discussion
of dates. is chapter is the book’s longest, and the most disorganized.
I have here tried to collect the various arguments scattered throughout
and address them in a more logical and accessible sequence. We
should note that Meldrum regards this as the only potential point
of contention for his theory, and thus he believes that if he can cast
significant doubt on the dating issue, he will have established his case
firmly. But we must remember that the model is untenable on multiple
scriptural and scientific grounds regardless of the dating problem.
180. Ugo Perego, “Haplogroup X in Light of Recent Book of Mormon Claims,” 2009
17 May 2010).
M, R DNA115
the type of answer that all the scientific publications he has cited will
provide. He does this by attacking evolution, the ice age, and an old
earth on religious grounds, then by dismissing, in a quasi-scientific
way, various aspects of the sciences he regards as heretical (pp. 93–105).
(I discussed these issues in section I.E.) e rhetorical ground has
thus been scorched—the reader may feel that any alternative is better
than accepting the experts’ standard methodology because Meldrum
has portrayed it as religiously unacceptable. But we cannot reject data
simply because they are unpalatable.
II.D.1 eory, fact, and confirmation
Meldrum is keen to embrace the findings of genetics when they
serve his goals. He does not, however, want to accept everything that
goes with those findings. He therefore creates a naive dichotomy
between “empirical, experimental science” and “theories” (pp. 104–5).
“Nowhere has any experiment demonstrated that the theorized process
of fossilization can be duplicated in a laboratory so that it can be
known with certainty how a piece of bone or wood can be turned into
a rock. ese theories are based completely upon a priori assumptions
of men” (p. 104). When claims cannot be directly tested because of
“the tremendous time-frames thought necessary,” this “places [them]
into the realm of philosophy, not empirical, experimental science”
(p. 104). We look for substantiation of these remarkable claims but
are told that they (like others) will have to wait: “e previous non-
referenced comments will not be covered in detail until the release of
a future work by colleagues titled e Universal Model” (p. 104). One
guesses that this is Meldrum’s twelve-hundred-page research project
claims on faith.
What Meldrum is offering us here is not science but a philosophy
of science—neopositivism. He refuses to regard as “science” anything
that will not meet his standard of what might be called “conclusive
116
verifiability,”¹⁸¹ which essentially requires laboratory reproduction
betrays his positivistic leanings when he presumes that science is
about “certainty”—“this is why it is so critical to base all research on
a foundation of something that is known to be true and build upon
labels anything that doesn’t meet his standard as “philosophy,” the “a
priori
Circle likewise had little time for nonscience, which they classed as
“metaphysics”—mere philosophizing, and not very good philosophy
at that.
e problem, as we now know, is that positivism and its offspring
contain the seeds of their own demise. One cannot verify or prove
that this standard of proof is an appropriate standard, which by the
same arguments means that the standard itself is invalid. In the
same way, Meldrum presumes that if something cannot be shown
to happen “in a laboratory,” then it is not science but just a “theory”
(p. 104). A knowledge of geochemistry is useless and mere theory if
one cannot demonstrate fossilization in the lab in real time. By this
argument, Meldrum’s DNA theory is not science but philosophy.
A past Israelite migration to the New World cannot be shown in a
laboratory or directly observed. Nor has the spread of mtDNA from
a single, genetically limited founder group of four women spreading
through the Americas at 600 been seen in a petri dish. And so, by
his reasoning, we ought to throw it out.
Such a claim is, of course, absurd. If we cannot see or touch (or
even visualize) an electron and must rely instead on indirect evidence
and inference, ought we to abandon chemistry? ermodynamics
cannot be a science under this standard because it relies heavily on a
mathematical construct—entropy—that cannot be directly measured
or observed.¹⁸²
181. See e Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
182. “A new, purely mathematical function—the entropy— . . . had to be introduced
into physics.” Lloyd Motz and Jefferson Hane Weaver, e Story of Mathematics (New
M, R DNA117
e quest for certainty is likewise misguided and unattainable
(p. 104). Science can at best provide only the most plausible
explanation(s) given all known data, and those explanations will
paradigm, a theory must seem better than its competitors, but it need
not, and in fact, it never does, explain all the facts with which it can
be confronted.”¹⁸³ Meldrum wants genetics to convince Amerindians
about the Book of Mormon’s promise that they are of Israel, so nothing
less than certainty will do. It is “critical to base all research” (p. 106,
emphasis added) on the known, we are told, but even Alma did not
require people engaged in the most important research project of their
lives to begin with something “known to be true”—they only had to
“desire to believe” (Alma 32:27).
Meldrum does not, to be sure, strictly follow these principles. Most
of his claims in Remnant through DNA are either already falsified or
can be salvaged only with extensive supposition and special pleading.
sounding reason for rejecting some science while keeping what he
is the real thing.
e false science is even made to admit it on the sly since Meldrum
frequently points out the tentative nature of its claims as if this were a
bad thing or an admission of inadequacy:
and that the human-chimp split is ‘hypothetical.’ Note the use of
the words ‘inferred’ and ‘hypothetical’” (p. 107).
800,000 years. How much confidence in the evolutionary assump-
tions does this demonstrate?” (p. 107).
a ‘finding’” (p. 107).
183. omas S. Kuhn, e Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed. (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1970), 17–18.
118
-
genetic rate . . .” (p. 109).
In science, though, one ought not to make claims beyond the evidence.
is may mean enormous ranges of dates, but one can be relatively
confident that the evidence supports those ranges.
Meldrum is also mistaken in thinking that theories can be
separated from data. He asks,
Does comparison . . . of one non-empirical theory through
the use of another nonempirical theory equal validity? In
other words can a theory be relied upon that has been vali-
dated only by other undemonstrated theories? Isn’t there
some point where the theories must be verified by physical
experiment or observation in reality to be demonstrated to
be true? eories based on theories do not a truth make, any-
more than a lie can be substantiated by another lie to create
truth. (p. 106)
Note the rhetorical comparison of “theory” to a lie and the use
of mutually supporting “theories” as one lie supporting another.
What Meldrum calls “non-empirical” theories are thus not based in
verification, or they remain unsupported. ey require grounding “in
reality.” He only wants science that is “experiment- or observation-
based,” not “more theory based” (p. 101).
In fact, there is a complex relationship between the things we
observe (the external world) and the theories we make about them.
One cannot simply go looking for “facts”—we cannot escape “the
cloven hoofprint of theory” as we determine what facts we will
consider significant.¹⁸⁴ It seems unlikely that Meldrum would have
found mtDNA to support the Book of Mormon had he not started
with the belief—or certainty—that such evidence existed and could be
184. e expression is from philosopher of science N. R. Hanson, quoted with discus-
sion in Stephen Jay Gould, e Hedgehog, the Fox, and the Magister’s Pox: Mending the
Gap Between Science and the Humanities (New York: ree Rivers Press, 2003), 34–35,
see also pp. 108–12.
M, R DNA119
found.¹⁸⁵ Likewise, the facts he gathers are then given meaning by a
out of random data collected in dispassionate disregard for what they
may or may not mean. No one attempts science like that—Meldrum
least of all. All science involves both theory and observation, from
which inferences are drawn.
Meldrum’s metric for good science is thereaer used on an
as-needed basis to portray the science of mtDNA dating as chaotic and
arbitrary. e way is smoothed by his repeated reminders to the reader
that the older date suggested by the science “is again inconsistent with
and contrary to the teachings of the Lord through his scriptures and
the prophets” (p. 105).¹⁸⁶ And readers can congratulate themselves at
seeing through the smokescreen that protects the scientists’ “dogma”
“by disallowing honest challenge”: “You, the reader, are about to
embark on a profound example of what happens when just such
condition occurs. . . . A clear example will be shown of how a belief
in evolution, the theoretical scientific dogma of our day, is used to
discount and ignore empirical scientific data and fact” (p. 102). It is
not simply that the science is mistaken—dogma and prejudice blind
scientists to the answers that are right in front of them all the time.
185. Meldrum’s functional certainty should be self-evident for anyone who reads even
part of Remnant through DNA, though he begins by insisting that he is not claiming
“proof” (pp. 5, 45). See introduction, section C, above.
186. Other examples include the following statements: “Yet macro-evolutionary
assumptions are in direct conflict with the revealed word of God. e majority of
Americans believe in God and the Bible forms the primary basis for those beliefs. Even
many of those having the Bible only, that enjoy no modern revelation as do LDS, have dif-
man that is not built on the firm foundation of the scriptures and the prophets should be
in the theories or precepts of man will bring upon us a ‘curse’ wherein the truths that God
who seek God’s truth will find happiness in new information that is founded on and
More and more elaborate theories were given to account for all the many aspects thought
to be His nature. . . . en a young farm boy went into a grove of trees . . . with tremendous
faith and a question. e glorious vision that transpired forever answered and refuted all
the false theories that had been built up by men over hundreds of years” (p. 106).
120
II.D.2 Why are scientists so blind?
We are promised a textbook example of this process in action
since “empirical DNA evidence has been undermined and to some
extent overcome through theoretical methods and ‘explained away’
in an effort to force a fit between the observed truth and the dogmatic
offered for Latter-day Saint geneticists’ failure to embrace Meldrum’s
theories: power, money, or a lack of proper belief. We return, then, to
the alleged atheist conspiracy that controls scientific inquiry at the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National
introduction, section A, above).
denying God to a Christian,” we are told (p. 118). Meldrum’s mental
de Chardin, eodosius Dobzhansky, Pope John Paul II, Kenneth B.
are essentially untroubled by evolution.
e closest I have come to finding a source for Meldrum’s claim
about the atheists’ control of science is a letter to Nature that reports
a survey about God delivered to members of the National Academy
of Sciences (NAS).¹⁸⁷ Seven percent expressed belief in a personal
God who answers prayer, while 72.2 percent expressed disbelief in
that idea. e specific question asked was based on a 1914 survey. As
one nonbelieving author observed, the form of the question may have
influenced how it was answered. e question was stated as follows:
1. I believe in a God in intellectual and effective
communication with humankind, i.e., a God to whom one
might pray in expectation of receiving an answer. By “answer”,
I mean more than the subjective psychological effects of
“yes” to this question, one would have to believe that God is
187. Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham, “Leading scientists still reject God,” Nature
394 (23 July 1998): 313.
M, R DNA121
not only in communication with humankind, which many
religious people do believe, but that God is in both intellectual
and effective communication. What is the meaning of
“intellectual” communication? “Effective” communication?
Someone who believes that God communicated with
humankind but not “intellectually” (whatever that means)
would have to answer “no.” Is “effective” used in the modern
sense of the word meaning “something that works well”, or
in the more archaic (1914) use of the term meaning “to bring
about”? . . . Experienced pollsters simply do not ask paragraph-
long questions anymore because they know that they elicit
contingent (and therefore difficult to interpret) answers!¹⁸⁸
In addition to the potential difficulties caused by the question,
20.8 percent expressed “doubt or agnosticism,” not committing
to be an atheist. Nor is disbelief in a personal God who answers prayer
necessarily consistent with atheism in all cases. ose who view God
as a distant “first mover” or “prime cause” or in a Deist sense are
not properly regarded as atheists either. Given that only about half
the members surveyed replied, it is also difficult to judge whether
those who did not reply might have different views. Other studies
of scientists generally have found about 45 percent to be atheists, 40
percent to be believers, and 15 percent to be agnostic.¹⁸⁹
I also asked Dr. Michael Whiting, director of BYU’s DNA
for his reaction to these claims. He described them as “inaccurate,
paranoid, overblown, and ignorant.” He elaborated:
challenges evolution. I have served on many evolutionary
188. Eugenie C. Scott, “Do Scientists Really Reject God?” Reports of the National
Center for Science Education
scientists-really-reject-god (accessed 18 May 2010), emphasis in the original.
189. See discussion in Alister McGrath and Joanna Collicutt McGrath, e Dawkins
Delusion? Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine (Downers Grove, IL:
122
biology panels and that instruction or even discussion has
never emerged. [Some have] for years now tried to promote
themselves as a viable alternative to evolutionary theory, but
they have yet to design an experiment to test their claims, and
someone were to come up with a compelling experiment that
would test the fundamental claims of evolution, then there
is no reason built into the funding agencies why it cannot be
funded.
It seems to be only those on the periphery of the field
who make claims about a funding conspiracy that controls
the direction of research. ose of us who spend a good deal
of our academic lives pursuing funding know that it is not a
rigged system nor a system that forces us into conventional
thinking. In fact, the proposals that tend to get funded are the
ones that challenge convention, so if anything, a person who
designs a compelling experiment to disprove evolution would
likely see that proposal rise to the top of the funding pile.¹⁹⁰
Whiting’s reaction matches my own more limited experience as
an undergraduate research assistant. e burden of proof lies on the
claimant, and Meldrum has presented no proof at all. Yet Meldrum’s
explanation of an atheist conspiracy at the highest levels of American
science is seriously offered as the reason that his views regarding
evolution have not been accepted. Latter-day Saints are charged with
scientists . . . to get tenure and fudning they must also ‘toe the line’
and ‘not rock the evolution boat’ that continues to take our children
farther and farther from the safe harbor of the Lord and the scriptures”
(p. 120). So Latter-day Saint scientists supposedly risk the souls of
Latter-day Saint children for worldly advancement and money? is
is apparently more of the “respect” Meldrum has for those who differ
with him.
190. Michael Whiting, e-mail to author, 9 December 2009.
M, R DNA123
II.D.3 Two roads?
Meldrum portrays the dating issue as a fundamental conflict
between “two distinctive groups within the LDS community.” “ere
are,” he tells us, “those who question the dating and those who accept
years that are based upon evolutionary time frames are accepted”
(p. 141).
While I’m sure that members of both groups exist, the two
not classify myself in either group. I do not “accept the dating as [my]
reality” (whatever that means), but I do acknowledge that the scientific
data do not point to ages in the range that Meldrum’s model demands.
ere are a host of reasons why this could be so: (a) Meldrum could be
Meldrum claims, and I have concluded that at present one is either
misinformed or dishonest to claim otherwise. In any such case, I am
much happier indicating that I do not know the answer than claiming
that I have found an answer that doesn’t work.¹⁹¹ I do not require a
solution to all the issues of dating and evolution to be confident that
Meldrum’s theory is nonsense, given the current state of the data—
which is all we have to go on.
But those who disagree with Meldrum are portrayed in a
Manichaean light since those who don’t follow his dating ideas are
191.
discussed haplogroup X as a potential Lehite marker. He then incorrectly concludes that
the evolution-based phylogenetic dating of haplogroup X, claiming that it arrived in the
haplogroup X but realizes that the science at present does not permit dating haplogroup
Tvedtnes’s
request because he realized that the evidence would not support the initial remark as
124
the “same individuals [who] are also accepting of the phylogenetic
dating methods and the basis from whence they spring (Evolution
DNA for dating and the study of populations requires some aspects
of evolutionary theory (mutation, selection, genetic dri, fixation,
of genetics in studying ancient human populations. And one need not
embrace evolution to conclude that Meldrum’s use of the dating data
has serious problems. I wish he were right about the dates. But he isn’t.
II.D.4 e first clue
e initial use of mtDNA for dating presumed a clocklike rate of
mutation. If changes in the DNA sequence accumulate at a constant
rate (say, one mutation per thousand years), then if mtDNA samples
differ from each other in three places, they last shared an ancestor
three thousand years ago. Given the cost and time required to sequence
DNA, in the early 1990s a small region of mtDNA was oen used—the
“control region,” or “D-loop.”¹⁹²
e control region was used because it does not encode any
proteins. Much DNA provides a code or “template” that enables the
cell to synthesize various proteins. A mutation in a protein-coding
protein might not function, and this could mean disease or death for
the mitochondria unlucky enough to carry it. Without functioning
mitochondria, cells die, and dead cells lead to dead animals and
humans. It was thought that mutations in the noncoding “control
region” of DNA would accumulate at a “neutral” rate and wouldn’t
be particularly helpful or harmful, so they wouldn’t promote either
the survival or death of the mitochondria who got them. is would
render their accumulation of mutation relatively steady and constant.
While this was a reasonable working assumption, further work
raised questions. And it is here that Meldrum’s tale begins. He discusses
192.
Web site, “Section 1: DNA Evidence,” in “Reviews of DNA Evidence for Book of Mormon
Geography
M, R DNA125
“a very important article” in Nature Genetics by omas Parsons and
others (p. 107), who compared the frequency of mutations expected in
the mtDNA control region assuming a neutral rate of change back to
a theoretical human ancestor. is rate was compared to the observed
rate of mtDNA mutation in historic time. e historic rate of change
was twenty times as high as the “theoretical” rate.¹⁹³ e implications
are obvious: if the mutation rate is not constant, or if the predicted
rates do not match observed rates, then such rates cannot be simply
extrapolated backward and used to date prehistoric events.
Parson then makes a remark upon which Meldrum seizes:
Using our empirical rate to calibrate the mtDNA molecular
clock would result in an age of the mtDNA MRCA [most
recent common ancestor] of only [about] 6,500 y.a., clearly
incompatible with the known age of modern humans.
“is figure is so unbelievably low,” editorializes Meldrum, “that
Parsons immediately questions his own findings by his dogmatic
statement that his own reality-based results are ‘incompatible with the
“known” age of modern humans’” (p. 109).
Having made it clear that any belief in an earth older than
seven thousand years or humans before 4000 is unscriptural and
unfaithful to prophetic teaching, Meldrum insists that Parsons’s
conclusion is mere dogmatism. Actually, it is anything but. Parsons
must confront (as must Meldrum) a host of data from many fields
suggesting that modern humans existed before 4000
pedigree studies there are other mutation rates that differ from
Parsons’s rate, though Meldrum does not even mention them. ese
differing rates use the same part of the mtDNA molecule that Parsons
used. If different areas of the mtDNA molecule are examined, we get
still other rates (see table 1).
Parsons’s values are also interesting in another way since tests
done on blood showed a much higher mutation rate (4.3 x 10⁶, or 1
193. omas J. Parsons et al., “A high observed substitution rate in the human mito-
chondrial DNA control region,” Nature Genetics
126
mutation every 381 years) when compared to tests on cell lines (0.94
x 10⁶, or 1 mutation every 1,744 years). Which of these rates is the
“true” rate? Why do they differ so greatly? Is averaging them the best
way to approximate the true rate? (Meldrum also does not tell us that
as a forensic geneticist, Parsons intentionally focused his work on
mtDNA sites that are highly variable, because they are most useful
for identifying modern individuals. Most of Parsons’s mutations were
found around base position 309, one of multiple “extreme mutational
hotspots” in the mtDNA control loop, whose high mutation rate is not
matched by most other mtDNA sites.)¹⁹⁴
ere are more examples and nuances that we will consider later,
but table 1 is sufficient to make the point that there are many pedigree
studies. No empirical rate matches any other rate, and there is a wide
variation—and Meldrum has picked almost the highest rate (that of
Parsons) upon which to focus our attention. He cites many of the
papers listed above, so he cannot be unaware of these other rates, but
instead he chooses an extreme example among equally “empirical”
measurements.
II.D.5 Enter the conspiracy theory
Meldrum insists that all geological and fossil data are based on
“several primary assumptions,” and one of these “primary assumptions
is that evolution is the basis for life on earth” (p. 109). is is plainly
false. Carbon dating, for example, makes no assumptions about
Darwin and Wallace produced evolutionary theory. Not one of these
evidences is engaged by Meldrum, and he does not really regard such
a discussion as being of any importance:
According to modern revelation, and actual genealogical
records from human history in the Bible, the infinitely better
194. Hans-Jürgen Bandelt et al., “Estimation of Mutation Rates and Coalescence
Human Mitochondrial DNA and the Evolution of Homo
Sapiens
Nucleic Acids and Molecular Biology
69–73 for discussion.
M, R DNA127
defined “known” age of modern humans is approximately
6000 years, a figure that appears to have been demonstrated
as accurate by mtDNA empirical data. (p. 109)
Meldrum decries Parsons’s supposed dogmatism but here provides
us with a stunning example of his own dogmatic tendencies. Despite
Meldrum’s claims, we do not know how long mankind has been on
the earth (see section I.E above). But he still regards his figure of six
thousand years as “infinitely better known” since
members of the Church [have] . . . absolute calibration points
that non-members do not have. ese are the [scriptures] . . .
and the words of the prophets of God. If the theories of men
were replaced with the truths of God, there would be no dis-
crepancy whatever in the dating of the most recent common
ancestors, Adam and Eve, 6,000 years ago. (p. 125)
If something truly is infinitely better known with absolute data
points, then no data can counteract it, no matter how compelling. If
Meldrum is so certain, fine—but let us abandon the pretense that this
exercise is about science. He has a conviction that is unshakable, and
he is therefore doing nothing but proof-texting the scientific literature,
searching for snippets and quotes that he can use to support what he
already knows but does not analyze in context or present fairly.
Meldrum further thinks his figure of six thousand years for
humans on earth “appears to have been demonstrated as accurate” by
Parsons’s study. is verges on the absurd. Let us grant, for a moment,
that he is correct and all living humans share a common mitochondrial
DNA ancestor that lived six thousand years ago (“mitochondrial Eve”).
is does not mean that mitochondrial Eve was the first woman. It
simply means that only her mtDNA has survived into the present.
Others who lived before her (or at the same time as her) simply don’t
have any descendants le.¹⁹⁵ In another context, Meldrum observes of
those who make this sort of error, “One of the assumptions made by
195. e Iceland study referenced by Butler (cited on p. 27 of Meldrum, Remnant
through DNA) illustrates this same phenomenon. Most people in Iceland are descended
from a few individuals. But many other individuals also lived at the same time in Iceland
128
those inexperienced with the field of genetics is that the coalescence
date is the same as the arrival date” (p. 127). I could not agree more.
e putative 4000 date would only be the coalescence date and can
claim otherwise betrays inexperience.¹⁹⁶
A most recent common ancestor provides a boundary in only one
direction, telling us that humans were around at least six thousand
years ago. It says absolutely nothing about how long they existed
beforehand. (e next citation provided by Meldrum makes precisely
these points, though he does not explain them to the reader.)¹⁹⁷ And
given that there appears to be vast evidence of humans living on every
continent well before 4000 , Parsons knows that they cannot all share
all interbreed because of distance. He thus knows that his rate cannot
be correct over longer time spans, and “evolution” need have nothing
to do with Parson’s skepticism. As we have seen in our discussion of all
Amerindians sharing Lehi as an ancestor, current thinking puts the
most recent ancestor¹⁹⁸ of all living humans much closer to the present
day than six thousand years ago, the date Meldrum is so fond of (see
section II.B.1). Clearly, evolutionary biologists do not feel threatened
-
one tells us nothing about that person’s ancestors or how far back they go.
196. Brigitte Pakendorf and Mark Stoneking, “Mitochondrial DNA and Human
Evolution,” Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics
Peopling of the Americas,” PLoS Biology -
Relethford, “Genetic Evidence and the Modern Human Origins Debate,” Heredity
(2008): 557.
197. Laurence Loewe and Siegfried Scherer, “Mitochondrial Eve: e Plot ickens,”
Trends in Ecology and Evolution
198. As opposed to the most recent mtDNA ancestor, which current data date to
approximately two hundred thousand years ago.
M, R DNA129
Table 1: mtDNA mutation rate according to various pedigree studies
Author Date
Years per
mutation
mtDNA area
studied*
Soodyall (observed)²⁰⁰ 1997 None None CR
Soodyall (95% CI)† 1997 ≤1.01 x 10-6 ≥893 CR
Parsons (cited by Meldrum) 1997 2.50 x 10-6 656 CR
Jazin²⁰¹ 1998 None None
Jazin (95% CI) † 1998 ≤1.52 x 10-6 ≥1,783
Jazin (all pooled pedigree
studies to 1998, 95% CI)† 1998 ≤2.20 x 10-6 ≥1,232
Sigurðardóttir²⁰² 2000 4.14 x 10-7 3,017
All pedigree studies to 2000 2000 3.20 x 10-7 2,815 CR
Howell²⁰³ 2003 1.00 x 10-6 1,639 CR‡
Combined studies 2003 9.80 x 10-7 1,673 CR‡
Average all pedigree studies
to 2003 2003 4.75 x 10-7 3,451 CR
Pakendorf (average all
pedigree studies to 2005) 2005 4.70 x 10-7 1,917
Pakendorf (all pedigree
studies to 2005, 95% CI)† 2005 0.00 – 1.46 x 10-6 ≥617
(CR or D-loop). e coding region is that part of the mtDNA that codes for proteins, i.e.,
the rest of the molecule not in the CR.
† 95% CI = 95 percent confidence interval (statistically, the chance is 95 percent that the
true range lies between the two values)
‡ = in hereditary optic neuropathy
199.
is pedigree study found no mutations at all. e next line of the table gives the 95
observed data reflect an actual pedigree mutation rate between the ranges given.
200. Elena Jazin et al., “Mitochondrial mutation rate revisited: hot spots and polymor-
phism,” Nature Genetics 18 (1998): 109–10 .
201. Sigrún Sigurðardóttir et al., “e Mutation Rate in the Human mtDNA Control
202. Neil Howell et al., “e Pedigree Rate of Sequence Divergence in the Human
Mitochondrial Genome: ere Is a Difference between Phylogenetic and Pedigree Rates,”
American Journal of Human Genetics
130
by a most recent common ancestor in even historical time. It is non-
sensical to insist that Parsons made the decision on that basis.²⁰³
Parsons concluded, wisely, that the assumption of a clocklike
regular change of the mtDNA control region must be called into
question. Meldrum, on the other hand, takes the opportunity to
provide another two-page exposition about the evolutionist conspiracy,
contrasted with the selective yet imposing archaeological backing for
his reading of the Bible (pp. 109–10).
Meldrum then discusses a similar study with a similar outcome:
the observed mutation rate would place the most recent mtDNA
ancestor about six thousand years ago. Meldrum is triumphant since
“again Parsons’ study is vindicated” (p. 111). He does not quote the
actual study but relies on a news summary in Science by Ann Gibbons.
Concerning the mitochondrial Eve of six thousand years ago, Gibbons
observes, “No one thinks that’s the case.”²⁰⁴ “Why is such a statement
made?” demands Meldrum. Perhaps the evolutionists have mistakenly
tipped their hand. “Why is the empirical finding so easily dismissed
as faulty?” (p. 111).
e “empirical finding” is not dismissed at all. e observed
mutation rate in the descendants over historical time is a fact. Indeed,
various pedigree mutation rates have been observed, all of which are
“empirical findings,” and some showed no mutations at all (see table 1).
One cannot simply latch onto the single rate that one finds appealing
and then declare that all other rates are irrelevant or corrupt.
e measured rates are not being disputed or dismissed. e point
at issue is another theoretical construct: the idea that this mutation
rate is constant and continues to be so back to 4000 . Insisting that
mutation rates are constant to 4000 is as much a “theoretical”
presumption as the one Meldrum blames evolutionists for holding.
No one has directly measured the mutation rate of mtDNA back
to 4000 or 200,000 . e rate(s) must instead be inferred and
203. Other authors note that if mutation rates were as high as some have argued, some
observed mtDNA sequence patterns would be obliterated due to recurrent mutation within
less than a thousand years. See Bandelt et al., “Mutation Rates and Coalescence,” 67.
204. Ann Gibbons, “Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock,” Science
M, R DNA131
deduced based on the facts available in the here and now. Since the
assumption of a clocklike rate of mutation led to what one author
called “apparently silly conclusions,”²⁰⁵ it is worthwhile to question
it. Since all the empirical rates are not identical, it hardly makes sense
to claim that the mtDNA rate is both constant and known but being
ignored.
Meldrum presumes to know why someone would not think
it was the case: “None of the atheists at the head of these scientific
organizations thinks Eve lived 6,000 years ago [note his conflation of
the biblical Eve with mitochondrial Eve], but there are a lot of people
year figure is the correct one” (p. 111). What “a lot of people” think is,
of course, irrelevant to the truth or the facts.²⁰⁶
Meldrum doesn’t bother to tell us one of the reasons that Gibbons
gives for questioning the mitochondrial Eve of six thousand years ago:
“e oldest non-controversial archaeological sites [in the Americas]
are 12,500 years old.” Again, this has nothing whatever to do with
evolution. ere is simply a great deal of evidence suggesting that
humans were around before 4000 . Meldrum is trying to make
a case based on the DNA, but the DNA scenario he presents is not
plausible. It is as if he wishes to deny gravity while using Newton’s
equations to predict the planets’ orbits.
II.D.6 Why do we have different pedigree rates?
Gibbons also points out that the theory is where most people were
already focusing their attention, wondering “if the noncoding DNA in
the control region is not entirely immune to selection.”²⁰⁷ Remember,
the control region was chosen because it was hoped that mutations
there would not help or hinder the chance of survival, so that mutations
would be regular and not disappear when they happened. If mutations
205. Sigurðardóttir et al., “Mutation Rate in the Human mtDNA Control Region,” 1608.
206. is is a classic example of the argumentum ad populum, an appeal to the popu-
larity or widespread nature of a belief as an argument for its truth. Meldrum realizes this
since he elsewhere argues that “acceptance of a theory or achieving a consensus among a
group does not make something true” (p. 127). Indeed.
207. Gibbons, “Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock,” 29.
132
in the control region affect survival, then we cannot assume that its
rate of mutation is constant, and its utility as a clock fades. is is
why scientists in the field were worried, not because they feared they
had stumbled onto a proof that the Bible was really true aer all and
evolutionary theory was about to come crashing down. And, as it
turned out, control region mutations do have an effect on survival
since they “exhibit variation that affects mitochondrial transcription
and replication in significant ways.”²⁰⁸
does not generally recombine or have two copies of each gene (as all
nuclear DNA except sex chromosomes have), selection against any
part of the mtDNA molecule will select against all of it.²⁰⁹
We do not, however, get the whole story from Remnant through
DNA. Within two years of Parsons’s study, Max Ingman and col-
leagues pointed out that almost all work on humans had been done
using just the control region, “which constitutes less than 7% of the
mitochondrial” DNA.²¹⁰ ey used the entire mtDNA molecule and
compared its mutation rates to those found in a noncoding region of
the X chromosome.²¹¹ When the control region was excluded, these
values correlated as expected, strongly suggesting that the control
region was an inappropriate site for a reliable molecular clock. Any
use of mtDNA for dating would have to rely on examining the entire
molecule and would have to compensate for the different rates of
mutation exhibited by different parts of the mtDNA chromosome.²¹²
Meldrum then provides a lengthy and confusing discussion of
“phylogenetic” (i.e., evolutionary-based) and “pedigree” (in historical
208. Cristina Santos et al., “Mutation patterns of mtDNA: Empirical inferences for the
coding region,” BMC Evolutionary Biology
209. Hawks, “Population Bottlenecks,” 10.
210. Max Ingman et al., “Mitochondrial genome variation and the origin of modern
humans,” Nature
211. Henrik Kaessmann et al., “DNA sequence variation in a non-coding region of low
recombination on the human X chromosome,” Nature Genetics
212. An illustration of the variation in observed mutation rate for the entire mtDNA
genome is found in Phillip Endicott et al., “Evaluating the mitochondrial timescale of
human evolution,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution
19 May 2010).
M, R DNA133
time) dating (pp. 112–18). e presentation is tedious, and it is difficult
to follow because of his tendency to quote snippets from studies
without properly contextualizing them. His material repeats what
we have already learned above—studies on historical individuals
(“pedigree” studies that use known humans in recent time) oen show
much higher mutation rates than longer-term analyses—and so we
will not consider it in detail here. His argument portrays the pedigree
rates as “based on experimental factual evidence” and the studies of
deeper time as relying only on “nebulous theories” (p. 113). In truth,
however, both types of study use experimental evidence, and both
require theoretical presuppositions, such as a constant mutation rate.
e only certainty about the pedigree studies is the differing rates.
Once we try to extrapolate a chosen rate back in time (as Meldrum
must, to get his 4000 mitochondrial Eve), we are again assuming
that the rate is constant.
Mitochondrial DNA sites with a high rate of mutation are also
vulnerable to “back mutation.” A base pair could mutate and then
mutate back to the original configuration. e scientist is le with no
clue that multiple mutations have occurred, since the mtDNA’s final
state is identical with its original form.
Meldrum’s tendency to employ double standards manifests itself
here. He asks, “How do we know if any rate changing has actually
occurred,” making the evolutionary rate slower and the pedigree rate
faster? (p. 122). is is a good question, but Meldrum should ask it
of himself (as others have done).²¹³ How do we know that the control
region mutation rate is constant for six thousand years? We don’t. And
we now know that it almost certainly isn’t.
Why might the “evolutionary rate” be slower? We must not get
confused here, as Meldrum does when he asks, “At what point in time
did this supposed ‘shi’ [in rate] occur?” (p. 122). e point is not that
the rate of mutation suddenly changed or “sped up” at some moment
in the past. In fact, one study cautions against precisely this error:
213. Perego tells me that he personally explained this to Meldrum (Perego to Smith, 28
134
Importantly, the decrease in molecular rate . . . does not
require the invocation of a novel mechanism of “rate accelera-
tion” towards the present. It is merely an observed decrease in
molecular rate, the end result of mutation on the one side and
purifying selection and saturation on the other.²¹⁴
We must realize that changes to mtDNA are not oen “neutral.”
When DNA changes, this may threaten the survival of the organism.
us, in the short term (e.g., within human life spans) mutations might
well appear relatively rapidly (as they did in some pedigree studies,
we do not know whether all those mutations will survive, especially
when further mutations are added to them. Mitochondrial DNA that
accumulates enough harmful mutations will simply die out, and no
descendants will remain to be studied later. is is called purifying
selection and has been directly observed in mammalian mtDNA.²¹⁵
us, these mutations have simply disappeared from the present-day
collection of mtDNA that is available for study in living people. Some
mutations have thereby been taken out of the pool available for study.
And so, since there is no hint that these mutations existed (because
they le no descendants), the longer-term rate appears lower than it
really was. If we could wait long enough with the pedigree rates we
see today, we would see that most of these mutations will not survive.
ey happened, but they will someday be gone from the living pool
of mtDNAs available to future researchers. us, our present-day
“mutation rate” would also appear lower to people alive thousands of
years from now, just as long-past rates appear lower to us.
e impact of purifying selection increases the further back in
time one goes. e most recent work suggests that there is not a single
214. Simon Y. W. Ho and Greger Larson, “Molecular clocks: when times are
a- changin’,” Trends in Genetics
215.
Mammalian Mitochondrial DNA,” PLoS Biology
general discussion, see David M. Rand, “Mitigating Mutational Meltdown in Mammalian
Mitochondria,” PLoS Biology
M, R DNA135
“point” at which the rate suddenly jumps, but simply a smooth curve
with high recent rates and a decreasing rate of persisting mutations as
we go back in time.²¹⁶
As one study reported in 2006:
In order to infer divergence rates [i.e., time since a
common ancestor], it is convenient to assume a constant
rate of evolution throughout the tree. is practice has been
regularly challenged by results . . . showing considerable
departures from clocklike evolution, and rate variation
among lineages that can seriously mislead. . . .
Such problems with the molecular clock hypothesis have
resulted in it being abandoned almost entirely for phyloge-
netic inference in favor of a model that assumes that every
branch has an independent rate of molecular evolution [i.e.,
mutation].²¹⁷
II.D.7 What pedigree mutations do we care about?
It should also be clear that not all mtDNA mutations seen in a
pedigree study will be relevant to longer-term mutation rates. e
following steps must all arise for a mutation to occur and remain to be
detected later in phylogenetic studies:
1. A mutation must occur.
2. e mutation must occur in a female (male mutations could be
measured in a pedigree study, but none of them will be passed on).
3. e mutation must occur in germinal cells (i.e., in the egg cell—a
mitochondrial mutation in a muscle cell might affect the muscle cell
216. Pedro Soares et al., “Correcting for Purifying Selection: An Improved Human
Mitochondrial Molecular Clock,” American Journal of Human Genetics
S0002-9297%2809%2900163-3 (accessed 19 May 2010). See also discussion in Bandelt et
217. Alexei J. Drummond et al., “Relaxed Phylogenetics and Dating with Confidence,”
PLoS Biology
pbio.0040088 (accessed 19 May 2010), emphasis added.
136
a chance to be passed on).²¹⁸
4. e mutation must become “fixed” in the population (i.e., the
mutation must not be so harmful to the survival or reproduction of
those who have it that they are “selected out”).
What happens if we recalculate pedigree rates as we account for
these various factors? In every case, one can determine objectively or
empirically whether the mutation occurred, whether it occurred in a
woman, and whether it affected germinal cells. We see in table 2 how
the pedigree rates drop as each factor is accounted for, and how they
then correlate with phylogenetic rates calculated by the same authors:
analysis, which would be to determine if a mutation in a woman’s
egg would go on to become fixed. is determination requires
consideration of whether the mutation is neutral or subject to selection.
Such a conclusion is perhaps arguably less “objective,” but in either
case it will reduce the mutation rate even further than the rate of
female germinal cell mutations. ese numbers are thus conservative
indicators of how inappropriate Meldrum’s use of Parsons’s figure
is. e real-world situation is actually worse for Remnant through
DNA than it appears from table 2. Small wonder that a recent review
remarked that “although the pedigree approach might seem promising
at first (or even second) sight, in reality it is fraught with problems that
seem insurmountable.”²¹⁹
II.D.8 Meldrum’s table of data
Remnant through DNA presents its own table of mutation rates,
which is offered as an example of the evolutionists “desperately
holding onto the theory rather than embracing the evidence” (p. 119).
e table is misleading and confusing because (a) it does not proceed
in chronological order, making it difficult to see how the proposed
218. An alternative scenario has a mutation occurring early in embryogenesis follow-
the mutant form, resulting in “heteroplasmy.”
219.
M, R DNA137
²²⁰
and (c) the units used to express the mutation rates are not the same
in all cases.
Imagine trying to compare distances between cities using a similar
table, but some distances in the table are given in miles and others in
seconds. How easy would it be to compare the distance or travel times,
especially if one doesn’t know how fast the car is traveling? Meldrum
creates an analogous situation for the reader. At times, he quotes the
rate as the chance of a mutation per mtDNA site per million years.
In order to know how long to wait for one mutation, the reader must
know how many mtDNA bases are used in each study (i.e., how “fast
the car is going”), and this is not the same for all the studies cited.
In other cases, Meldrum reports how many years must pass before
one mutation occurs. is has the effect of making such values seem
much larger than the others, just as if travel times were reported in
seconds. (Which sounds longer—a drive of one hundred miles or a
drive of 360,000 seconds? In fact, they are identical, though this is
not obvious unless we know the car is traveling sixty miles per hour
and can do the math for ourselves.) It is perhaps no coincidence that
all the studies so reported are of the maligned “phylogenetic” type.
On the other hand, it could be that Meldrum copied exactly what
each paper reported, without converting the figures from one form to
another. It is not clear whether he knows that this is necessary to make
meaningful comparisons.
ere is another factor, however, that distorts the impression: most
of these figures are only for the control region of the mtDNA. And there
is broad consensus that the control region alone is not a useful genetic
clock. All the entries in Meldrum’s table for dates up to and including
220. Meldrum, Remnant through DNA, p. 125, cites Perego (2009) as providing
under “2009” (p. 119, rows 10–11). He has misread the paper—these are rates provided
by Mishmar (2003) and Kivisild (2006). Perego provides adjusted rates not included in
adjust for the Mishmar and Kivisild rates. is blunder is further evidence that Meldrum
does not really understand the material he is citing—he reproduces the text that describes
the origin of these figures but fails to cite (or use) Perego’s actual figures. He includes
Kivisild’s figures under 2006, but I do not see the inclusion of Mishmar’s for 2003.
138
2005 (with one exception) are only for the control region.²²¹ Since
researchers have realized that a single rate for this region alone is not
suitable for dating, these figures are now irrelevant—the high pedigree
rates do not reflect the longer-term rate of mutations that remain and
spread (see II.D.7), some of the phylogenetic rates are likely too low, and
neither rate can be assumed to be constant throughout time.
What is more, these now-obsolete control region figures are in
no way related to the remaining four mutation rates in the table,
which are of the entire coding region of mtDNA—a region that was
are for synonymous mutations (a change in the DNA code that does
not alter the protein it makes) and two are for all coding mutations
(including those that change proteins and so risk the early death of
any mitochondria so afflicted). e rates over time of synonymous
measure quite different things.²²² Although a new rate based on the
complete mtDNA genome has recently been proposed, Meldrum does
not mention it at all.²²³
II.D.9 e end of the first story
It is important to realize, then, that Meldrum is actually telling us
two different stories and that, until now, we have seen only the first.
Meldrum has played heavily on the first story, likely because it is the
first example of mtDNA mutation rates being called into question and
221. e papers from which the numbers in Meldrum’s table (p. 119) derive are as
follows, in the order presented: (1) Parsons (1997), for several studies from 1991 to 1995,
data (note that the wide error interval makes it “possible” that no mutation is happen-
-
gree studies.
222. e synonymous mutations are reported in Meldrum’s table (p. 119), lines 9 and
11. Both are from Kivisild (2006), though the latter is Perego’s (2009) account of Kivisild’s
results, reported by Meldrum as if it is Perego’s result. e whole coding region is cited
Perego’s (2009) report, mistakenly attributed to him by Meldrum.
223. Soares et al., “Correcting for Purifying Selection,” 740–59.
M, R DNA139
because the reader has now been told that DNA science has provided
“empirical finding[s]” that support a recent appearance of humans
and a hyperliteral reading of Genesis. Supposedly, “this same debate,”
Meldrum tells us, “continues to rage aer 11 years of wrangling”
(p. 111). e implication is that the use of the mtDNA control region
and its supposed support for Meldrum’s fundamentalist reading of the
Bible are still going concerns. is is false.
A recent review of mtDNA dating pointed out that even in the
late 1990s, most complete published mtDNA sequences “suffered
from missequencing and misreading.” It was not until 2000 that “the
first (fairly) reliable set of complete DNA sequences” was available.²²⁴
And many studies (such as those chosen by Meldrum) that rely on the
control region alone “also have a high error rate, which to some extent
disguises the real mutational process.”²²⁵ e “continuous stream of
technical flaws and biases” permit “‘end users’ [like Meldrum] . . .
simply to pick out the ages that serve the story they wish to tell, no
matter how technically wrong the dating method might be.”²²⁶ Of
Meldrum’s claim about higher pedigree rates, the authors note:
Calibrating the molecular clock has been the subject of a
great deal of controversy, to the extent that in the mid-1990s
concerns were raised that the clock for the first hypervari-
able segment of the mtDNA control region might have been
misestimated by a factor of 10 or more. Subsequent discus-
sions emphasized the numerous approaches to dating, such as
calibration against the fossil record, calibration against and
comparisons with the archaeological record, and comparison
with other systems such as coding-region restriction fragment
were available. ese considerations suggested that those con-
cerns, which were based on estimates from pedigree studies,
224.
225.
how pedigree studies are uniquely vulnerable to sequencing errors that can exaggerate
the true mutation rate by at least six times, see p. 78.
226.
140
Table 2: mtDNA mutation rate in pedigree studies
(By type of mutation compared to phylogenetic rates)
Author Date Which mutations?
Years per mutation
Parsons 1997 All control region (CR) 2.50 x 10-6 656
Santos²²⁸ 2005
All CR 1.40 x 10-6 1,164
CR–women only 5.12 x 10-7 3,200
CR—germinal cells only 7.68 x 10-7 2,133
1.68 x 10-7 9,786
Compare phylogenetic²²⁹ 2.00 x 10-8 3,237
Santos²³⁰ 2008
All CR 3.50 x 10-7 2,593
CR–women only* 3.50 x 10-7 2,593
CR–germinal cells only 2.34 x 10-7 3,885
2.34 x 10-7 3,885
Compare phylogenetic†
0.58 – 2.86 x
10-7 5,732–28,510
* Note that all mutations were in females in this pedigree study.
† When the chances of being fixed are added to this pedigree analysis, the highest
rate is 4.12 x 10-7, which represents one mutation every 22,025 years—well within the
phylogenetic rate. Lower rates produce results even worse for Meldrum’s theory.
were largely unwarranted. . . . We nevertheless still see the old
arguments recycled about a tenfold higher “pedigree rate.”²³⁰
Remnant through DNA is, quite simply, more than a decade out of date.
II.D.10 e second story
It is here, then, that the first story ends: the mtDNA control region
is not a suitable molecular clock. It cannot be used in isolation to
227. Cristina Santos et al., “Understanding Differences between Phylogenetic and
228. e phylogenetic rate per site is lower than the pedigree rates, but it results in
more frequent mutations because the phylogenetic rate is here calculated on the cod-
ing region (15,446 sites) instead of on the control region (1,110 sites). It thus has more
“chances” to have mutations, so they happen more frequently. is demonstrates why
converting to a single standard measurement is oen necessary to produce figures that
can be easily compared (see discussion in II.D.8 as it applies to Meldrum’s data table).
229. Santos et al., “Mutation patterns of mtDNA,” 1–12.
230.
M, R DNA141
accurately date past events, including Meldrum’s claim that humans
appeared six thousand years ago. And until Remnant through DNA’s
said little about the second story, to which we now turn.
Nothing in the science of the second story supports Meldrum’s
hope for a 4000 origin for humans either. But he blurs the discussion,
and so the reader may suspect that the current disagreement about
the precise dates obtained from molecular data still has a bearing on
the past discussion about the use of the mtDNA control region alone.
It does not. No current researcher believes or argues that the coding
region alone provides an adequate “clock” for reliably dating events.
e second story’s conclusion has yet to be written, but the plot is
clear—it seeks to answer the question, can mtDNA be used to reliably
date any events in the past that we do not directly observe? And, if
it can, which events can be dated, and for what time period(s) can
reliable dates be obtained?
Meldrum does nothing to help his audience understand ongoing
efforts to reconcile all the available data. Since he wants his chosen
“pedigree rate” to be accepted (hoping, one suspects, that this means
that dating Adam and Eve to six thousand years ago will remain
“proven” or at least accepted by his readers), he dismisses any efforts
to calibrate the data. He describes this as “massaging” the data and
describes it as “rather suspiciously similar to ‘cooking the books’ done
by crooked accountants. If it doesn’t fit, keep working with it until it
does” (pp. 123–24). Again, we see the author condemning those who
disagree with him as dishonest.
Meldrum concludes his dating argument by again confusing the
rates calculated for the control region with rates derived from the
entire mtDNA molecule:
e primary purpose for this section . . . is to establish that
there is no compelling reason to accept the notion that hap-
logroup X arrived in the Americas prior to the time of the
arrival of Lehi’s group at 600 BC. . . . e proposed arrival
times have ranged from 12,000 to 36,000 years ago based on
very broad phylogenetic rates of mutation. Using conservative
142
empirical estimates, this rate could just as well be 1,200 to
3,000. . . . is is most certainly within the realm of possibility
based on all the dating problems reviewed. (p. 128)
e “conservative empirical estimates” that Meldrum clings to all
rely on the control region—which does not mutate at a constant rate
and is subject to selection and recurrent back mutations. It therefore
cannot be used alone for dating—whether to 2600, 4000, or 14,000 .
As we saw in table 2, even pedigree rates do not meet Meldrum’s needs
when we consider (as we must) only those mutations that could spread
to descendants.
II.D.11 Soware aids and abets
Some researchers avoid using evolutionary events to calibrate
their mtDNA timescales. Instead, they feed the observed mtDNA
sequences into computer programs that use statistical methods to
determine relationships and the distance between them. is allows
each mutation rate to vary independently. Unlike some dating
methods, such as the “phylogenetic” approach dismissed by Meldrum,
these “results are not contingent on a prespecified parametric growth
model”²³¹—or, in less jargon, the results do not assume a smooth,
regular, clocklike rate of mutation throughout the entire time period
being considered.
Meldrum tries to condemn and dismiss this approach by noting
that the computer tools used are called “phylogenetic soware”
(p. 124). Since he associates “phylogenetic” with evolution, and
evolution with atheism, one suspects this is intended to be a telling
admission on the part of the scientists. Meldrum’s argument
demonstrates that he does not understand the terminology. Here the
term phylogeny simply refers to any ancestor-descendant relationship
between two or more organisms.²³² I could, if I wished, speak of the
231.
Chapter in Human Prehistory,” Molecular Biology and Evolution
232. Phylogeny is “the development or evolution of a particular group of organisms”—
it need not imply interspecies evolution, as when one considers development of the gene
M, R DNA143
phylogenetic relationship between me and my son, who is only one
generation removed, and clearly of the same species (he is not yet a
teenager). I could also speak about a proposed phylogeny between me
and an ancestor from 2600 . A phylogenetic soware analysis does
not imply or require interspecies evolution—it only implies a genetic
relationship of some sort.
Under evolutionary theory, all organisms have a single phylogeny
because all are believed to be related, if only distantly. But “phylogenetic
soware” can also be used to determine the relationships between a
group containing only modern humans living in historical time. e
only “evolution” being considered is the mutation and selection of
mtDNA variants, which is the whole point. When one is dealing with
hundreds of mtDNA samples, each consisting of thousands of base
pairs, no unaided human could determine how each sample should be
most plausibly connected in a single gigantic family tree. is kind of
massive data analysis requires a computer.
Meldrum is clearly unable to critique or even describe the complex
statistical modeling that such programs use. It is doubtful that most of
his audience could either—I certainly cannot. He resorts, by default,
to a tried-and-true technique:
[ese computer programs] have the added benefit of allow-
ing a claim that one’s results have been analyzed by computer,
giving the pale of non-human objectivity. Oh, they have
Plot Analysis, etc. (p. 124)
Attorneys who wish to appear “just simple country lawyers” have
used this tactic repeatedly to persuade a salt-of-the-earth jury to
ignore some bit of evidence. is ploy flatters the audience, implying
that even though they don’t understand the fancy science and math,
this is no defect. In fact, not being seduced by the arcane material is
enlightened man-or-woman-in-the-street can see through the
pool of a single species. Random House Dictionary, 2010, s.v. “phylogeny,” emphasis
144
obfuscation of corrupt or hopelessly addled scientists. e tools are
disparaged as hiding their deception and desperation behind fancy-
pants nomenclature and technical jargon, and their claims need not,
therefore, even be seriously addressed because they are unworthy
of consideration: “Soware parameters are very easily manipulated
resulting in easily manipulated data. Of course this may be the very
reason for the development of the soware program—in anticipation
of the newest approach to reconciling the dating dilemma” (p. 133).
I trust the reader will not succumb to this bit of sophistry and will
recognize that this line of evidence has gone unanswered by Remnant
through DNA.
II.D.12 Not so far apart
Meldrum insists that Parsons’s mitochondrial Eve of six thousand
years ago is the only proper answer. But we now know that this
analysis used an improper assumption: clocklike change in the control
region. When other methods—pedigree, phylogenetic, and those that
do not presume any evolutionary relationship between humans and
other species—produce varying answers, this is offered as evidence
of confusion and dissembling. But, in fact, the various methods
provide results that are roughly comparable. Scientists are not happy
with the disagreement in dates that still exists, but it is not the ten- to
twentyfold difference that Meldrum makes it out to be (pp. 108, 128).
A recent study discusses the issue of human entry into the
Americas.²³³ One of the authors of the study, Simon Ho, has been
among the fiercest critics of the phylogenetic calibration, and Meldrum
has quoted his previous work with enthusiasm throughout Remnant
through DNA (see references 66, 77, 83). Yet Ho’s study provides the
date ranges for entry into the Americas based on various models—
including those he has criticized. ey appear in table 3, with some
additions from other sources.
233.
timescale of human evolution,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution
2010).
M, R DNA145
Clearly, even if the most conservative of these dating schemes cur-
rently under consideration are precisely true, they are millennia away
from 4000 . We see, in fact, that the proposed ages between the
two methods have been narrowed to within a few thousand years of
each other, but Meldrum is still convinced that Parsons’s 1997 rate is
accurate for all time frames and constant throughout them all. is
gives him a common ancestor at 4000 that represents the biblical
Adam and Eve, and so he considers all further discussion merely an
attempt to protect evolution. In this case, Meldrum has done his work
too well by demonstrating that the control region mutation rates are
not reliable clocks. Yet he still wants to appeal to at least one rate based
on the control region because it will support his model, though it is no
more viable when extrapolated for his purposes than the “evolution-
ary” rates he dismisses.
II.D.13 e bottom line
Meldrum has attempted to paint a picture of chaos and utter
disagreement about dating via mtDNA. In doing this, he hopes to
persuade us that (a) science tells us that modern humans appeared on
the scene six thousand years ago and (b) X2’s arrival in the Americas
could well date from Lehi’s time and that this is persuasive evidence
in favor of the Book of Mormon. e reader is further led to think that
only ideology and bias blind the scientists—or other Latter-day Saint
researchers—to these possibilities.
Regardless of which “faction” wins out in the scientific debate
about the best way to use mtDNA to date distant events, Meldrum’s case
has no support whatever. “ere is no solid evidence to the contrary
that can objectively reject or refute this theory. It is simply a matter
of which dating scheme one chooses to utilize,” we are confidently
assured (p. 128). As we have seen, this is false. None of the evidence
to use, the model cannot at present accommodate a 600 entry of
Lehites into the Americas as the founding source of X2a. None of the
current scientific debate about precise dating using mtDNA can save
this theory.
146
II.D.14 Meldrum’s scientific revolution?
the picture painted is a heady one. “Such a dramatic paradigm shi
would,” we are told, “require rethinking the basis of archaeology,
anthropology, and many other scientific fields” (p. 111). And maybe
it would. at many fields would require massive readjustment is
an important realization, though not for the reasons that the author
believes. It could be possible—anything is, aer all—that the vast
majority of natural scientists in a host of disciplines are colluding to
avoid accepting or admitting the truth that stares Meldrum in the
face. But I think a more prosaic explanation warrants consideration.
young earth simply because scientists wanted to discard the Bible or
because they wanted to salvage Darwin’s theory of natural selection.
Rather, long before Darwin, the earth’s great age was something that
thinkers of the 1700s came to almost reluctantly, leaving even the
most avant-garde natural historians “astounded by ‘the dark abyss of
time’”—the idea was that foreign. By the 1780s, “new theories which
took for granted a long timescale were becoming commonplace.”²³⁴
In fact,
surprising as it may seem in today’s world of revived biblical
literalism, there was little opposition to Darwin’s book on the
grounds that it challenged the Genesis account of creation.
e geological controversies in the early decades of the [nine-
teenth] century had convinced most educated people that the
text of Genesis must be understood in a non-literal way that
would be consistent with the development of the earth over a
vast period of time.²³⁵
ese changing beliefs were largely driven, and then embraced, by
scientists who were believing Christians—many of them clergymen.
234. Bowler, Evolution: e History of an Idea, 57–58.
235. Bowler, Evolution: e History of an Idea, 202.
M, R DNA147
ey came to these views because the evidence, as they saw it,
compelled them.²³⁶ Such ideas were neither comforting nor natural.
Despite the caricature presented by Remnant through DNA, genetic
science is not a rickety scaffold of unfounded theories with no basis
in experience or empirical data. Meldrum dismisses the idea that one
“non-empirical theory” can confirm another (p. 106). “It is interesting
to note,” he tells us, “. . . that the cross-checking being done . . . is to
check one theory against another theory. . . . Is it any coincidence that
theories may share similar hypothetical notions and thus provide
little independent proof. But many theories start from quite different
realms, involve quite different mechanisms, and yet arrive at similar
4000 is suggested by the carbon dating of organic remains. A second
line of evidence derives from mtDNA, and a third from Y-chromosome
data. And yet a great age for modern humans was advocated in the
1800s—well before the discovery of radioisotopes or the double helix—
simply on the basis of paleontology. Carbon dating did not have to
with carbon dating—but they did. It is hard to see this intersection of
theory and data as only coincidence, the product of wishful thinking, or
withholding grant funding from those who differed.
us, when Meldrum insists that population genetics, archaeol-
ogy, anthropology, and other fields might be revolutionized, this is a
tall order. It amounts to claiming that a vast amount of data from dis-
parate fields has been completely misinterpreted for decades by thou-
sands of generally honorable men and women.
If we are to dispense with dating the earth via radiochemistry,
for example, we might also need to completely revamp our view of
atomic theory since the decay of radioactive isotopes is among one
require a total recasting of nuclear physics, a field for which we have
236. Monkey Trials and Gorilla Sermons,
30–78.
148
the earth’s age to seven thousand years would send ripples, waves, or
tsunamis through virtually every natural science. Is it any wonder,
then, that when a discrepancy arises in a new field (population genet-
ics) based on data amenable to multiple interpretations, and when new
data are constantly refining and changing the picture, few researchers
are eager to risk tossing the baby out with the slightly murky bathwa-
ter—especially when the bath basin offered in exchange is bone dry?
Meldrum obviously feels, as I do, that there is profound evidence
for the Book of Mormon in many domains. When a new bit of evidence
appears that purports to utterly destroy the foundations of Mormonism,
critics are repeatedly disappointed that believers do not suddenly aban-
don the ramparts and stay home on Sunday. Meldrum and I would reply,
I suspect, that every eddy in the ever-changing data is not sufficient for
us to abandon something for which we believe we have profound and
broad spiritual and secular evidence. As Neal A. Maxwell observed:
By not being actively involved in the process of faith, doubters
simply do not receive reinforcing rewards. ey also resent
the lack of sympathetic vibrations from the faithful each
time doubters themselves oscillate in response to what they
suppose is some “new evidence” to the contrary. C. S. Lewis
made the point that those without faith are entitled to dispute
with those who have faith about the grounds of their “origi-
nal assent,” but doubters should not be surprised if “aer the
assent has been given, our adherence to it is no longer propor-
tioned to every fluctuation of the apparent evidence.”²³⁷
And, I venture to say, that given how alienated Meldrum finds
himself from much of modern science—and given that he has
obviously never participated in either the frustrations or the thrills of
doing actual science—he simply cannot understand why population
geneticists are not abandoning an interlocking model that has proved
enormously powerful (at both predicting future observations and
explaining them) simply because the mtDNA data presented them an
237. Neal A. Maxwell, Lord, Increase Our Faith (Salt Lake City: Bookcra, 1994),
89–90.
M, R DNA149
Table 3: Current Dating Estimates—Various Authors and Methods
Model author
(date)
Method Calibration Entry to Americas
(ybp) †
Mishmar
(2003)²³⁹
Entire mtDNA coding
region, all mutations
Human-chimp split at
6.5 mya*
18,000
Kivisild (2006) Entire mtDNA coding
region, substitution
mutations only
Human-chimp split at
6.5 mya
14,000
Achilli (2008)²⁴⁰ Entire mtDNA using
Mishmar rate
Human-chimp split at
6.5 mya
18–21,000
Kitchen (2008) Entire mtDNA coding
combination of 8 other
autosomal sites
Bayesian analysis and
archaeology
15,000
Endicott, Ho
(2009)
Entire mtDNA coding
region, all mutations
Bayesian analysis and
multiple points of
archaeology
14,000
Perego (2009) Archaeological,
geologic, linguistic,
and phylogenetic data
Multiple 13,500–19,000
Archaeology of
the Americas
None Carbon dating,
stratiography, etc.
15,000
Schroeder
(2009)²⁴¹
9-repeat allele at
microsatellite D9S1120
Statistical modeling 12,825
* mya = million years ago
† ybp = years before present
the fun. Scientists—good ones, at least—expect to have their expecta-
tions overturned, and the intellectual fight can oen be vicious since
the process demands that everyone advance their best efforts.²⁴¹ e
238. Dan Mishmar et al., “Natural selection shaped regional mtDNA variation in
239.
2010).
240. Kari B. Schroeder et al., “Haplotypic Background of a Private Allele at High
241.
counterarguments are presented can appear, at times, personal or over the top, leading
150
struggle to resolve a problem oen reveals the problem to be only
apparent. What was initially an anomaly becomes further evidence
that one was on the right track all along, albeit with a less profound
and nuanced understanding—aer all, “if any and every failure [for
a theory] to fit [an observation] were ground for theory rejection, all
theories ought to be rejected at all times” because no observation or
theory is perfect.²⁴² “e most exciting phrase to hear in science,”
wrote Isaac Asimov, “the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
‘Eureka!’ but ‘at’s funny.’”²⁴³ One is unwise if one’s first reaction
(or second or third) to such a cry is to overturn most of science to fix
“the problem.”
Part III—e Broader Significance
In leaders undue impatience and a gloomy mind are almost
unpardonable, and it sometimes takes almost as much cour-
age to wait as to act. It is to be hoped, then, that the leaders
of God’s people, and the people themselves, will not feel that
they must have at once a solution of every question that arises
²⁴⁴
Meldrum is frustrated by the scientists’ intransigence on the issue
of dating:
Why is this so difficult to believe? Do we not have an ancient
historical record that clearly follows these lineages back all the
way to Adam? Have not most of the Bible’s claims been verified
through archaeological research? Why can’t the Bible be used
some onlookers to mistakenly conclude that “intellectual heat must breed emotional fire”
(Gould, Magister’s Pox, 204). But to complain solely about the perceived tone is to miss
the point—the “style over substance” fallacy. One can say that Meldrum is wrong either
politely or rudely, but factually wrong he remains. And it is that uncomfortable truth that
he must confront with more than complaining about someone’s tone or the biases and
vested interests that he intuits behind their disagreement.
242. Kuhn, e Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 146.
243. Isaac Asimov, as cited in Scott Kenneth Parks, “Cellular mechanisms of ion and
acid-base transport in aquatic animals” (PhD diss., University of Alberta, 2009).
244. Gospel Doctrine (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1939), 156.
M, R DNA151
as a basis for calibrating the dating? e answer is obvious:
such verification would cause the scientific community and the
world to admit that the Bible is true historically, which may also
lend support to the idea that it is also true doctrinally and spiri-
tually, and that would lead to an admission of the validity of
nearly all atheists, this is not tolerable. (p. 110)
Once again, we are promised “verification” of spiritual matters if only
we would look at the scientific evidence right before us. If Meldrum’s
view of science were accepted, we would know the Amerindians are
descendants of Israel, and the skeptic would almost have to believe,
albeit reluctantly, in the Bible and Christ’s reality. It would lead to an
“admission,” a grudging concession, but one that any intellectually
honest person would be almost compelled to make. And this single
admission could revolutionize much of the scientific enterprise with
one stroke.
While the promise of such intellectually compelling evidence is
seductive, it is also a trap. As the stock of science rose in the West,
thinkers were anxious to tie their religious beliefs into this new way
of knowing. In a masterful study of the rise of atheism as a viable
Historically the dominant sense of “believe” [in Christianity]
has been confidence in a person, not credence in a statement.
Yet if “belief in God” continued to include both connotations
of the word, their relative weight did not remain constant.
eological warfare during the sixteenth and seventeenth cen-
turies fostered an obsession with doctrinal distinctions. . . . is
ingenuity of church leaders magnified the intellectual aspects
of “believing,” pushed belief closer to the new objectifying, log-
ical, demonstrating cast of mind [typified by science]. Belief in
God by no means lost its footing in personal trust, but it came
to depend more heavily on cognition and intellectual assent.²⁴⁵
245. Without God, Without Creed: e Origins of Unbelief in America
(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985), 24.
152
Latter-day Saints continue to suffer from the legacy of this focus on
doctrinal niceties. Sectarian critics have long insisted that the Saints’
trust and belief in Jesus as Christ, Lord, and God is not sufficient
for either salvation or the label “Christian” because of supposedly
erroneous theological opinions (e.g., a belief in divine embodiment,
a rejection of Nicea, a belief in theosis, new scripture, and so forth).²⁴⁶
But believers in the creedal denominations were to ultimately
suffer for this shi as well. “Just as religion had become more a
matter of creedal assent, so belief had become more an intellectual
proposition subject to logical proof—like the propositions of natural
philosophy. . . . By the seventeenth century the rationalization of belief
had gone rather far.”²⁴⁷
e new sciences were soon co-opted into the service of Christian
belief and apologetic, “for natural laws themselves presupposed
a divine Lawgiver. . . . eology was subjected to the Newtonian
revolution long before many branches of science. is use of science
soon became a phenomenally popular apologetic tool. . . . If science and
rationalism had raised questions about God and unsettled belief, then
what more logical response than to shore up religion by remodeling it
in the image of science and rationality?”²⁴⁸
In the same way, the supposed “threat” to the Book of Mormon
from DNA has led Meldrum not merely to argue that such threats
are chimeras (which they are), but rather to insist that the science can
actually support and reinforce the faith. In fact, the Book of Mormon
promises are made to almost require
the Bible is true, archaeology must support it. “If the Book of Mormon
is true, then genetic truths and evidence will eventually bear out those
truths” (p. 3). “How are the prophecies regarding the remnants coming
to a knowledge that they are ‘descendants of the Jews’ possibly going
to be fulfilled if they have absolutely no genetic indication of having
246.
David Ricks, Offenders for a Word
Mormon Studies, 1998).
247. Without God, Without Creed, 25.
248. Without God, Without Creed, 27, 30, 49.
M, R DNA153
come from these lineages?” (p. 47). Like the Enlightenment clergymen
before him,
so easy was it [for Meldrum, we could say] to slip into this way
of thinking that many of the rationalizers of belief only half-
realized that they had in fact made a choice—and never really
stopped to consider its implications. . . . Divines increasingly
treated Scripture itself as a kind of historical data, analogous
to the facts of nature, rather than as the living voice of God.
e Bible in such hands imparted proofs rather than personal
faith, words rather than the Word.²⁴⁹
It is one thing to defend against or defuse science-based attacks
upon the faith. It is quite another to insist that we ought to expect
positive proofs from science and that without such proofs scripture or
prophecy is in trouble.
e 1600s and 1700s started down this path, but only the 1800s
would realize where it would lead. “By linking belief in God with
the methods and discoveries of science, the argument from design
simply carried to a natural conclusion the tendency to rationalize
the foundations of belief. is linkage was consciously forged in the
conviction that faith would be strengthened by making it clear and
rational.”²⁵⁰ I am not arguing, of course, that the gospel as taught by
the Church of Jesus Christ is unclear or that faith is irrational. But it
is a dangerous and fundamental error to make rationality the prime
criterion by which it is judged or to expect science—the primary tool
of rationality—to either rescue or be required by that faith. Rationality
is is, of course, the great attraction of rationality. If Meldrum can
only convince us that mtDNA dating is wrong, then this will almost
force an admission that his reading of the biblical account of creation is
literally true in all respects, which will require even the wicked to grant
that its witness of Christ must be seriously entertained. Without an old
earth, there is no other logical means for its existence, save divine fiat—a
249. Without God, Without Creed, 49–50.
250. Without God, Without Creed, 57.
154
guaranteed proof for God. Meldrum risks being like the churchmen
who “did not want to confess that belief might lie outside the purview
of logical analysis and empirical observation, for to do so would have
meant sacrificing the prestige of science and the comforting assurance
that hard-headed men could establish God as surely as they could tote
up the day’s receipts in their counting houses.”²⁵¹
By the mid-1800s, “[Christian] Church leaders had so long
trumpeted the absolute security of knowledge of God and pointed
to science as its guarantor that the now apparent insecurity of that
knowledge—the victim of that very science—could well leave a
thoughtful believer trembling on a reed.”²⁵² If Meldrum convinces his
audience that genetic proof ought to exist, where are they le when
they learn that he can only offer junk science?²⁵³ e theologians tied
their proofs of God ever closer to the argument from design, insisting
that nothing save God could possibly account for the diversity of
the living world. e arrival of Darwin’s theory was a terrible shock.
“Simply by offering a plausible alternative explanation, Darwin had
destroyed the proof value of design.”²⁵⁴ Like Meldrum, young earth
251. Without God, Without Creed, 108–9.
252. Without God, Without Creed, 179.
253. Non–Latter-day Saint Christians have noted the same risk from their crop of “crea-
useless apologetically with unbelieving scientists, it is harmful. Although many who have
no scientific training have been swayed by creationist arguments, the unbelieving scientist
will reason that a Christianity that believes in such nonsense must be a religion not worthy
of his interest. . . . Modern creationism in this sense is apologetically and evangelistically
ineffective. It could even be a hindrance to the gospel. Another possible danger is that in
presenting the gospel to the lost and in defending God’s truth we ourselves will seem to be
false. It is time for Christian people to recognize that the defense of this modern, young-
facts that God has given. Creationism must be abandoned by Christians before harm is
done. e persistent attempts of the creationist movement to get their points of view estab-
lished in educational institutions can only bring harm to the Christian cause. Can we seri-
ously expect non-Christian educational leaders to develop a respect for Christianity if we
insist on teaching the brand of science that creationism brings with it? Will not the forcing
of modern creationism on the public simply lend credence to the idea already entertained
by so many intellectual leaders that Christianity, at least in its modern form, is sheer anti-
intellectual obscurantism? I fear that it will.” Davis A. Young, Christianity and the Age of
the Earth (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1982), 163.
254. Without God, Without Creed, 184.
M, R DNA155
creationists have been trying to recover that lost certainty ever since.
“Recent scholarship . . . has suggested . . . seeing fundamentalism as
an attempt to secure for biblical truth the same certainty that science
enjoyed according to the Newtonian and positivist paradigm.”²⁵⁵ And
the consequences of that effort in Christendom generally were severe:
e loss of scientific knowledge of God would not necessarily
have proved devastating, save for one fact. Religious leaders
had, since Newton, insisted on linking science and God. . . . e
feebleness [of alternative accounts of faith] was the ultimate
consequence of a longstanding preference among churchmen
for proof that looked scientific. . . . is lust for empirical proof
proved, in the end, nothing less than disastrous for belief. Aer
not a subtle and firmly grounded alternative, but stunted argu-
ments and evocations of heartfulness.²⁵⁶
us, if one is convinced (even if unconsciously) that there is “no
effectual model of knowledge except science,”²⁵⁷ then one will do
one of two things: one will either capitulate to science (as Meldrum
charges those who disagree with him), or one will try to seize science
and remake it (however roughly) into an instrument of conviction
and faith. Meldrum has chosen the latter option. is requires, sadly,
that he distort the science, cite church leaders selectively, propose
conspiracy theories, disparage those who disagree, market his
materials beneath a veneer of spiritual claims, and propose strained
readings of scripture. Such defects may not be intentional, but they
are pervasive. is is a bad book on virtually every level—neither its
content nor its reasoning can bear the expectations placed on it. ose
who lean on it risk a shipwreck of faith at worst or an impoverished
view of the natural world at best.
255. Massimo Introvigne, “e Book of Mormon Wars: A Non-Mormon Perspective,”
Journal of Book of Mormon Studies
256. Without God, Without Creed, 187–89.
257. Without God, Without Creed, 193.
156
Ironically, even if Meldrum had a better grasp of both the science
and scripture, I do not think his project would be feasible. Moral
agency is a core gospel doctrine. God simply will not compel us to
anything, including belief in him. Boyd K. Packer emphasized this
fact when he pointed out, “If all things were known, man’s creativity
would be stifled. ere could be no further discovery, no growth,
nothing to decide—no agency. All things not only are not known but
must not be so convincingly clear as to eliminate the need for faith.”²⁵⁸
A full examination of the scientific data would, Meldrum tells
us, lead an honest observer to conclude that the earth is only seven
thousand years old, that humanity has existed only since 4000 , and
that the Book of Mormon migrations happened. But if the physical
world could be seen only in this way while remaining true to
rationality and the evidence, then it would provide an intellectually
compelling—even compulsive—argument for God’s existence. is
is, of course, the great appeal of such claims: science can be shown to
require God.
to biblical inerrancy, the point is vital. If their reading of the Bible
on creation is mistaken, then one cannot trust it about anything. One
the deity of Christ. Latter-day Saints are not prophetic or scriptural
inerrantists, though some among us seem anxious to ape them on
this point. Ironically, most of those who insist upon these matters in
the sectarian world are equally vociferous against our inclusion in the
“club” of Christianity.
We do not rely exclusively on scriptural exegesis for our doctrine,
but instead upon modern prophetic guidance. And yet some still find
the promise of putting others over a scientific barrel terribly attractive.
But if we are to be free to choose, belief in God’s existence cannot
be made logically irresistible, and the answer to questions of his
existence and his participation in the creation must remain open for
the honest, sincere investigator. (It is not enough to say that one can
258. Packer, “Law and the Light,” 8, emphasis in original.
M, R DNA157
disbelieve if one wishes—if such disbelief is intellectually perverse, it
e call to faith is a summons to engage the heart, to attune it
to resonate in sympathy with principles and values and ideals
that we devoutly hope are true, and to have reasonable but not
certain grounds for believing them to be true. I am convinced
that there must be grounds for doubt as well as belief in order
to render the choice more truly a choice—and, therefore, the
more deliberate and laden with personal vulnerability and
investment. e option to believe must appear on our personal
horizon like the fruit of paradise, perched precariously
between sets of demands held in dynamic tension. One is,
it would seem, always provided with sufficient materials out
of which to fashion a life of credible conviction or dismissive
denial. We are acted upon, in other words, by appeals to our
personal values, our yearnings, our fears, our appetites, and
our egos. What we choose to embrace, to be responsive to,
is the purest reflection of who we are and what we love. at
is why faith, the choice to believe, is, in the final analysis, an
action that is positively laden with moral significance. . . .
. . . Men and women are confronted with a world in which
there are appealing arguments for God as a childish projec-
tion, for modern prophets as scheming or deluded impos-
tors, and for modern scriptures as so much fabulous fiction.
But there is also compelling evidence that a glorious divinity
presides over the cosmos, that God calls and anoints proph-
ets, and that His word and will are made manifest through a
sacred canon that is never definitively closed.²⁵⁹
It is, therefore, unsurprising from a Latter-day Saint point of view
that the physical evidence may be credibly and honestly interpreted
as not requiring God’s participation in the creative process. Were it
otherwise, God’s existence would be a foregone intellectual conclusion.
259.
of Community,” BYU Studies
158
is means that the believer need not and should not spend time
railing against either the blindness or perfidy of men and women of
science. Without revelation, we would likely see the data much as they
do. Given what we know, we may choose to interpret parts—or all—of
the science differently, with equal intellectual honesty. But that is a
result of what God has revealed to us. It cannot be used or offered as
a cause
we can but encounter him.
is is not to say that the glories and miracles of creation cannot
inspire the search for God. ey do and have—even for Joseph
Smith.²⁶⁰
cannot ultimately substitute for it. “In order to present this part of
the subject in a clear and conspicuous point of light,” reads Lectures
on Faith, “it is necessary to go back and show the evidences which
mankind have had to believe in the existence of a God and also to
show the foundation on which these evidences are and have been
based since the creation.” And what were these evidences? Not the
natural world: “We do not mean those evidences which are manifested
by the works of creation which we daily behold with our natural eyes.
We are sensible that, aer a revelation of Jesus Christ, the works of
creation clearly exhibit his eternal power and Godhead throughout
260.
the sun the glorious luminary of the earth and also the moon rolling in their magesty
through the heavens and also the stars shining in their courses and the earth also upon
which I stood and the beast of the field and the fowls of heaven and the fish of the waters
and also man walking forth upon the face of the earth in magesty and in the strength
of beauty whose power and intelligence in governing the things which are so exceeding
great and [p. 2] marvilous even in the likeness of him who created him
<them> and when
I considired upon these things my heart exclaimed well hath the wise man said the
<it
is a> fool <that> saith in his heart there is no God my heart exclaimed all all these bear
testimony and bespeak an omnipotant and omnipreasant power a being who makith
Laws and decreeeth and bindeth all things in their bounds who filleth Eternity.” Joseph
Smith History, 1832, in Joseph Smith Letterbook 1, MS, 1–2, Joseph Smith Collection,
reproduced in Dean C. Jessee, “e Earliest Documented Accounts of Joseph Smith’s
Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations, 1820–1844, ed.
5. An earlier version is available in BYU Studies
M, R DNA159
their vast forms and varieties.” But such things are only compelling
aerward. e initial ground for belief lies elsewhere:
e way by which mankind were first made acquainted with
the existence of a God was by a manifestation of God to man.
It was by reason of the manifestation which God first made
to our father Adam, when he stood in his presence and con-
versed with him face to face at the time of his creation, that
the first thought ever existed in the mind of any individual
that there was such a being as a God who had created and did
uphold all things.
God became an object of faith for rational beings, and . . . [the]
foundation the testimony was based [on] which excited the
inquiry and diligent search of the ancient Saints to seek aer
and obtain a knowledge of the glory of God . . . was human
testimony, and human testimony only. . . . It was the credence
they gave to the testimony of their fathers, it having aroused
their minds to inquire aer the knowledge of God . . . [that]
always terminated when rightly pursued, in the most glorious
discoveries and eternal certainty.²⁶¹
Meldrum might well reply that he has such revelatory knowledge. I do
not seek to question that. But to argue that secular evidence in support
of the scriptures ought to be expected, and must be of a certain type,
is to threaten that knowledge in one’s audience, especially if the failure
of others to see that evidence is blamed on pride, a lack of faith, or
financial motives.²⁶² is is doubly true when one’s command of the
261. e Lectures on Faith in Historical Perspective
262. -
Prophecies
and Promises: e Book of Mormon and the United States of America (New York: Digital
Legend, 2009), 180, for almost identical text on the same issue. It has already been
160
historical, scientific, and scriptural data is shaky. His demonstration—
marketed as both necessary and persuasive—soon comes to seem
essential. Who will then supply its lack when the collapse comes,
especially when false expectations have been generated?
Conclusion
In 1820, a young woman wrote her brother in the midst of
her era’s intellectual challenges to belief, “I wish I could find some
religion in which my heart and understanding could unite.” She was
not to find what she sought.²⁶³ But in that same year a young man
entered a grove and came away with exactly such a union of heart and
understanding. “I feel like shouting hallelujah, all the time,” enthused
the not-easily-excited Brigham Young, “when I think that I ever knew
Joseph Smith, the Prophet whom the Lord raised up and ordained,
and to whom He gave keys and power to build up the kingdom of God
on earth and sustain it.”²⁶⁴ “I wanted to know the truth,” said Brigham
of his early days, “that I might not be fooled—children and young
men got religion, but I could not.”²⁶⁵ But “when I saw Joseph Smith,
and he took the earth, brought it up, and opened up in plainness and
²⁶⁶
May 2010]), suggesting that financial considerations do not loom large (for all videos, see
2010]). Meldrum seems unable to understand that objections to his theories could be
based on other than financial motives.
263. Without God, Without Creed
Lydia Maria Child: Selected Letters, 1817–1880, ed. Milton
Meltzer and Patricia Holland (Amherst: University Press of Massachusetts, 1981), 2, and (27
Letters of Lydia Maria Child (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Co., 1883), 7
(accessed 25 May 2010).
264. Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, 3:51.
265.
“Discipleship: Brigham Young and Joseph Smith,” in Joseph Smith, the Prophet, the Man,
Religious Studies Center Monograph Series
266. Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, 5:332.
M, R DNA161
God has been gracious—never has more material been available
that supports and illuminates the Book of Mormon. But we ought never
to expect that such support will come in the forms or ways we wish.
Such evidences will be confirmatory, not foundational or compulsory.
ey will usually defend, while providing little that can launch an
assault. Others may disagree without being unfaithful or fools. And
they will never require us to misrepresent the learning of the world.
e Book of Mormon, the Latter-day Saints, and the Church of Jesus
Christ deserve far better than Meldrum’s pseudoscientific snake oil
and strained proof-texting.
