You Can Take Off the Garments Now

In the L.A. Times

From the time he was a child in Peru, the Mormon Church instilled in Jose A. Loayza the conviction that he and millions of other Native Americans were descended from a lost tribe of Israel that reached the New World more than 2,000 years ago.

"We were taught all the blessings of that Hebrew lineage belonged to us and that we were special people," said Loayza, now a Salt Lake City attorney. "It not only made me feel special, but it gave me a sense of transcendental identity, an identity with God."

A few years ago, Loayza said, his faith was shaken and his identity stripped away by DNA evidence showing that the ancestors of American natives came from Asia, not the Middle East.

"I've gone through stages," he said. "Absolutely denial. Utter amazement and surprise. Anger and bitterness."

For Mormons, the lack of discernible Hebrew blood in Native Americans is no minor collision between faith and science. It burrows into the historical foundations of the Book of Mormon, a 175-year-old transcription that the church regards as literal and without error.

For those outside the faith, the depth of the church's dilemma can be explained this way: Imagine if DNA evidence revealed that the Pilgrims didn't sail from Europe to escape religious persecution but rather were part of a migration from Iceland — and that U.S. history books were wrong.

Brief pause here to point out that the reporter's analogy is imperfect. Historians would undoubtedly be skeptical if someone claimed that the Pilgrims came from Iceland, because the documentary and archeological evidence converges around the theory that they came from England in the early 17th century. If, however, a renegade historian had the goods, or at least led others to seek out and find the goods, the history books would have to change. That's the thing about history; we don't take it on faith. A more appropriate analogy, and one that stirs up religious passions all its own, is the lack of archeological evidence for a 40-year mass exodus of Hebrews out of Egypt. (The curious can go to Proquest and check out an article called "Conservative Movement Split On Exodus: In wake of Rabbi Wolpe's sermon saying event didn't happen, a debate on history vs. faith", orginially published in New York Jewish Week.)

Anyway, back to the L.A. Times:

Critics want the church to admit its mistake and apologize to millions of Native Americans it converted. Church leaders have shown no inclination to do so. Indeed, they have dismissed as heresy any suggestion that Native American genetics undermine the Mormon creed.

Yet at the same time, the church has subtly promoted a fresh interpretation of the Book of Mormon intended to reconcile the DNA findings with the scriptures. This analysis is radically at odds with long-standing Mormon teachings.

Some longtime observers believe that ultimately, the vast majority of Mormons will disregard the genetic research as an unworthy distraction from their faith.

I always love it when a religion whose texts are "literal and without error" suddenly require "fresh interpretation" in light of scientific data. I wonder if the Church will retroactively excommunicate those responsible for the old "misinterpretation". To me it would be far simpler to admit that Joseph Smith was full of crap about the whole golden plates thing, but to each his own, I guess. Faith based reasoning, you've got to love it.