Reader comments
DNA claims rebutted on Book of Mormon
448 comments | Read story
Get today's headlines via email
Afternoon edition
Deseret News Family Deals
In News
Across Site
- Colliding causes: Gay rights and...
- Woman charged in Rasmussen death...
- Photos: Salt Lake Main Library...
- Powells, Coxes put differences aside...
- Amendments to gutted sex education...
- Requests to alter online news...
- Salt Lake City celebrates 2002...
- 'Wicked' tickets on sale May 11
- Sweethearts in real life also share...
- Despite data, Lyme disease sufferers...
In News
Across Site
- Powells, Coxes put differences aside...
- Colliding causes: Gay rights and...
- View live stream of services for...
- Focus returns to Powell children today
- Battling misconceptions: Faced with...
- Father-in-law dragged deeper into...
- LDS bishop ordered to stand trial for...
- Josh Powell had 'incestuous' images...
- Despite data, Lyme disease sufferers...
- Missing plane found in Morgan County,...
In News
Across Site
- Prop. 8 declared unconstitutional
181 - LDS Church, others respond to Prop 8
88 - Gay rights and religious liberty
67 - Families at odds over Powell's actions
54 - LDS bishop ordered to stand trial
41 - Utah House blocks Sandstrom bill
39 - Powell call:'I'm afraid for their lives'
33 - Photos: Year of the Dragon
26 - Bill would cut auto safety checks
24 - Should SLC bid again for Olympics?
23







The ultimate hypcracy here is that he throws out personal speculation (as fact) that Thomas Murphy had already decided the Book of Mormon was fiction and was merely making conclusions to support this already decided belief. Then, only a few paragraphs later, Mr. Gardner professes that no study can 'change the truthfulness of the book.' Who is it that is making conclusions to support a preconceived belief here?
And Don't forget, the title page of the Book of Mormon, still, to this day, states that it is a record of the ancestors of the American Indian as was taught by Joseph Smith himself.
Second, there are no specific DNA markers that are exclusive to all Hebrews. The most common DNA marker for Jewish ancestry is only present in 2% of modern Jews. Thus, DNA evidence cannot exclude someone as a Jew, even if they lack some specific Jewish markers.
Finally, European DNA markers (indicating, for example Finnish ancestry) found in pre-Columbian remains are usually discounted as evidence of sample contamination. Preconceived notions of some researchers has thus resulted in some interesting data being discarded.
DNA evidence, therefore, has certainly not disproved the Book of Mormon.
A note to Anti-Mormon, biblical literalists: lest you overlook the fact, studies suggesting that N. America was populated 10,000+ years ago from Asia, are even more damaging to your theology.
Secondly, even if they were the original source, we are comparing a pool with 2,600 years of new genes introduced into the DNA within the eastern hemisphere, compared to a pool with 2,600 years of new genes introduced to the DNA in the Western hemisphere.
A good test would be if we could confirm that Jews from Iraq compare favorably in DNA to Jews from Russia. Can anyone say if that has been done?
The Book of Mormon is just over 500 pages and covers a time period of about 2,000 years (Including the Jaredites). From that perspective, I don't believe anyone can totally prove or disprove it using DNA or archeological evidence. We simply don't have enough of the record to make of definitive conclusions.
The real test of the Book of Mormon comes from the spiritual mainifestation one can receive when they read it. It's more than just a warm fuzzy, as some people claim. I'm talking about reading the Book of Mormon to the point that it changes your whole life. The Holy Ghost can have that type of influence, if you're willing to read the Christ-centered and beautiful messages contained in the Book of Mormon.
I would submit that their fervor against the book is almost more of a confirmation of its truthfulness than anything I've ever heard in favor of it.
They just have it in their heads that it's wrong and must be stopped at all costs, but I'm not sure even they know exactly why. They might divert all of that energy into something more useful (like, say, actually READING it with an open mind), rather than relying on prejudice, fallacious logic, inconclusive evidence, and limited understanding to disprove its worth entirely with one dismissive wave of the hand.
There is no other book out there with these characteristics that claims to be from an actual ancient civilization, through a modern source. It successfully attempts to be so many things and is just too complex to be lightly written off, especially with bad science.
So someone with an axe to grind has 'disproven' the anthropological roots. There are all these other aspects that still support it.
Oh, and add to all these other things, that it supports and interacts with both the Old and New Testament. The Book of Mormon is the ultimate "Inconvenient Truth".
Religion is a state of mind completely removed from objective investigation, and the church only opens itself to trouble and pain by attempting to reconcile scientific data with its scripture.
Latter-day Saints who don't read past the first couple of chapters in First Nephi will believe as Carrie stated.
However, later in that same book one can read that Ishmael's family and Zoram also migrated with Lehi (& family) to the Americas. Zoram married one of Ishmael's daughters.
In addition, the Book of Mormon states that Mulekites had migrated to the Americas separately. These people could have mixed with the existing Nephites and Lamanites.
And the Book of Ether states that Jaredites travelled to the Americas not long after the Tower of Babel.
Furthermore, many LDS authors have pointed out that the Book of Mormon is NOT the history of ALL the inhabitants of the Americas.
I am from Mexico and I am quite surprised at the differences in features of the extant inhabitants that have remained separate from the mainstream of the Mexican nation.
You can do a Google image search for "Olmec head" and compare them with those of Mayan faces; you will be surprised at the differences, even though they lived in such close proximity.
Undoubtedly more research needs to be done before jumping to any conclusions; particularly to lumping "American Indians" as descendants from one single group of peoples.
Why doesn't someone dig up the Hill Cumorah? It's because they are afraid of what they'll find (or lack thereof). I'm sure there might be some lively debates to this post....but no proof.
Enjoy this wonderful book and then start thinking that many wonderful books we enjoy are just fiction. Of course, the difference is that we know they are.