Reader comments
MormonTimes.com: DNA may help family research, but it won't prove or disprove Book of Mormon
245 comments | Read story
miracle | 12:42 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
The Book of Mormon is a miracle. It has been a miracle to my life. I have
lived its teachings, and I know the Savior better than before. I am happy and
at peace. Jesus Christ performed miracles, try to scientifically prove those
all of you stuck on scientific evidences. Just because we don't understand
something doesn't make it false or fake. Jesus was one who performed
miracles, I believe the Book of Mormon is just another wonderful miracle that
blesses millions of people's lives across the world.
Zadruga Guy | 12:52 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
Thomas @ 11:47 AM mentions that it was theoretically KNOWABLE to Joseph Smith
that there were two different translations of a particular verse in Isaiah.
That does not prove that Joseph Smith KNEW the fact. Also, even if Smith knew
the fact, why would he put both versions in that verse? It is not like any
paricular attention was drawn to that verse by anyone for many years. So if
Joseph Smith was the author of the Book of Mormon, WHY DID HE GO TO SO MUCH
TROUBLE, not just in that verse, but in many other places?
Comments continue below
Jacob L. B. | 1:23 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
I left the church not because of there not being any proof of DNA in the BofM,
but because the LDS members are stagnant and big huffy puffy know it alls. Some
members have no spirituality about themselves whatsoever. A bunch of stuffed
shirts. Big deal!
SlowS | 1:46 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
JPLambert
I'm sorry you have grown weary of the DNA discussion. I don't understand it either. I wish the sustained Prophet of the LDS Church would make a statement and clear this up. Were the Americas in fact peopled entirely by Lamanites and Lehites, is "limited geography" the new and correct interpretation of the Book of Mormon, or is Rodney Meldrum correct in his agreement with Joseph Smith regarding Lamanite (mound builders) populating North America. It does make one's head spin.
I'm sorry you have grown weary of the DNA discussion. I don't understand it either. I wish the sustained Prophet of the LDS Church would make a statement and clear this up. Were the Americas in fact peopled entirely by Lamanites and Lehites, is "limited geography" the new and correct interpretation of the Book of Mormon, or is Rodney Meldrum correct in his agreement with Joseph Smith regarding Lamanite (mound builders) populating North America. It does make one's head spin.
Lin | 1:51 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
Are y'all still hangin out on here. Y'all know ya have the DNA of
monkey's..Sheesh!
Haplogroup X | 2:00 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
Before we all get too excited, one ought to read more about the evidence DNA
scientists are finding all the time. Just take a sec and go to Wikipedia and
read about Haplogroup X. Who knows, maybe this is a smoking gun, and maybe not,
but I will echo the fact that man's knowledge is limited and one needs to
rely on faith in spiritual matters.
OK | 2:07 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
The fact is we are a bunch of Mongrel inbreeded mutts if you will. I believe
people came to the Americas many times and are not just Asians crossing over on
magical bridges or people from the BoM crossing over on magical boats.
By the way the study I read on DNA and BoM took about 300 samples of some hill people in South America and compared it to some Jews. Compare that to the, I don't know 5 billion people that have lived in the Americas over the past 5000 years and the 15 billion that lived in Europe and the Middle East and I think that pretty much discredits any result they get. 300 is simply too small of a sample be reliable and to make any type of reasonable conclusion.
By the way the study I read on DNA and BoM took about 300 samples of some hill people in South America and compared it to some Jews. Compare that to the, I don't know 5 billion people that have lived in the Americas over the past 5000 years and the 15 billion that lived in Europe and the Middle East and I think that pretty much discredits any result they get. 300 is simply too small of a sample be reliable and to make any type of reasonable conclusion.
Jodi | 2:09 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
I didn't leave the Church because of the absence of archaeological, DNA,
geographic or historic proof. I didn't leave the Church because of
polygamy, denying the blacks the priesthood or the questions surrounding the
translation of the Book of Abraham.
I simply left because the soft, gentle whisperings of the spirit told me that the LDS faith was not true. Me and my family have been very content, peaceful and happy since deciding to make the break.
I simply left because the soft, gentle whisperings of the spirit told me that the LDS faith was not true. Me and my family have been very content, peaceful and happy since deciding to make the break.
To: Haplogroup X | 2:28 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
You wrote:
"Before we all get too excited, one ought to read more about the evidence DNA scientists are finding all the time. Just take a sec and go to Wikipedia and read about Haplogroup X. Who knows, maybe this is a smoking gun, and maybe not, but I will echo the fact that man's knowledge is limited and one needs to rely on faith in spiritual matters."
From Wikipedia:
"The Solutrean Hypothesis posits that haplogroup X reached North America with a wave of European migration about 20,000 BC by the Solutreans, a stone-age culture in south-western France and in Spain, by boat around the southern edge of the Arctic ice pack.
Another possible way to explain existence of haplogroup X in mtDNA of indigenous peoples of the Americas is that it was brought to North America with the people of Caucasian origin through the Bering land bridge over 40,000 years ago."
I don't know how this proves the truth of the Book of Mormon. It sounds like Haplogroup X DNA proves the contrary.
"Before we all get too excited, one ought to read more about the evidence DNA scientists are finding all the time. Just take a sec and go to Wikipedia and read about Haplogroup X. Who knows, maybe this is a smoking gun, and maybe not, but I will echo the fact that man's knowledge is limited and one needs to rely on faith in spiritual matters."
From Wikipedia:
"The Solutrean Hypothesis posits that haplogroup X reached North America with a wave of European migration about 20,000 BC by the Solutreans, a stone-age culture in south-western France and in Spain, by boat around the southern edge of the Arctic ice pack.
Another possible way to explain existence of haplogroup X in mtDNA of indigenous peoples of the Americas is that it was brought to North America with the people of Caucasian origin through the Bering land bridge over 40,000 years ago."
I don't know how this proves the truth of the Book of Mormon. It sounds like Haplogroup X DNA proves the contrary.
Pardon Me, but.. | 2:53 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
...any erudite scholar would not be quoting from Wikipedia...
I Think. Therefore I Am. | 3:03 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
I left the LDS church not because of any fuzzy warm (or bad) feelings. I left
it because my brain told me it was a bunch of nonsense. I just couldn't
swallow it any more.
Do you suppose we would be where we are today if Gallileo just prayed about the sun orbiting the earth?
Did Newton pray about the law of gravity?
Faith without works may be dead. But faith that contradicts science and reality is nothing but superstition.
Do you suppose we would be where we are today if Gallileo just prayed about the sun orbiting the earth?
Did Newton pray about the law of gravity?
Faith without works may be dead. But faith that contradicts science and reality is nothing but superstition.
Danielle | 3:06 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
Yeah me too, Who cares about DNA or the Book of Mormon. I left the church
because I needed to feel free to think for myself. I am much happier now. I do
not care if they ever find any DNA to prove any thing, and I truly don't
think they will. I left a year ago and my life has not turn for the worst as
some said it would. that lame thinking. I still have high standards. I believe
everyone needs to be themselves or they will eventually go nuts trying to be
something they are not. Being good is easy, but you need to it because you want
to, not because someone sets certain rules for you.
Thomas | 3:07 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
Zadruga -- One doesn't have to prove that Joseph Smith was familiar with
the contemporary commentaries that gave the alternative translation, in order to
rebut the apologists' claim that Joseph Smith's use of both
translations could only have been the result of revelation. If Joseph could --
even theoretically -- have gotten the alternative from another source, that by
definition means that revelation is not the only possible option.
A person can read the Book of Mormon, have some kind of religious experience upon asking whether it's true, and choose to interpret that experience as a spiritual confirmation. But keep in mind that it is ultimately your *choice* to believe that what you felt came from God and not from your own mind. I respect that choice, but a choice it still ultimately is.
A person can read the Book of Mormon, have some kind of religious experience upon asking whether it's true, and choose to interpret that experience as a spiritual confirmation. But keep in mind that it is ultimately your *choice* to believe that what you felt came from God and not from your own mind. I respect that choice, but a choice it still ultimately is.
Prosecutor | 3:09 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
A robust finding in the science of population genetics is that any person that
has four or five grandchildren will almost certainly be an ancestor of the
entire world population two or three millennia from now.
And if a person lived two or three millennia ago, that person is either an ancestor of everyone living today or of no one living today.
Thus, assuming they were real people, the statistical chances of finding a Native American who is not a descendant of Lehi, Nephi, or Laman are vanishingly small. Do the math.
If this is an argument about science, we should stick to science. The DNA evidence shows only that some people's DNA is, or is not something like other people's DNA. Period. It cannot either prove or disprove the Book of Mormon.
Further, as Carl Sagan said, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." No failure to find a specific archaeological artifact proves that the Book of Mormon is not the story of real people that lived in a real place a long time ago.
Truth of the Book of Mormon, just like truth if the Bible is a matter of faith.
And if a person lived two or three millennia ago, that person is either an ancestor of everyone living today or of no one living today.
Thus, assuming they were real people, the statistical chances of finding a Native American who is not a descendant of Lehi, Nephi, or Laman are vanishingly small. Do the math.
If this is an argument about science, we should stick to science. The DNA evidence shows only that some people's DNA is, or is not something like other people's DNA. Period. It cannot either prove or disprove the Book of Mormon.
Further, as Carl Sagan said, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." No failure to find a specific archaeological artifact proves that the Book of Mormon is not the story of real people that lived in a real place a long time ago.
Truth of the Book of Mormon, just like truth if the Bible is a matter of faith.
Jessica | 3:11 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
Jodi wrote:
"I didn't leave the Church because of the absence of archaeological, DNA, geographic or historic proof. I didn't leave the Church because of polygamy, denying the blacks the priesthood or the questions surrounding the translation of the Book of Abraham.
I simply left because the soft, gentle whisperings of the spirit told me that the LDS faith was not true. Me and my family have been very content, peaceful and happy since deciding to make the break."
My husband was in the stake high council when our family made the break. We have been so much happier and content since leaving. We could not continue to live and deny the truth which was burning in our hearts. The spirit confirmed to us that the LDS faith was not true. I'm glad we listened and followed the spirit.
"I didn't leave the Church because of the absence of archaeological, DNA, geographic or historic proof. I didn't leave the Church because of polygamy, denying the blacks the priesthood or the questions surrounding the translation of the Book of Abraham.
I simply left because the soft, gentle whisperings of the spirit told me that the LDS faith was not true. Me and my family have been very content, peaceful and happy since deciding to make the break."
My husband was in the stake high council when our family made the break. We have been so much happier and content since leaving. We could not continue to live and deny the truth which was burning in our hearts. The spirit confirmed to us that the LDS faith was not true. I'm glad we listened and followed the spirit.
Ex-Mormon | 3:27 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
Jodi said:
"Jodi | 2:09 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
I didn't leave the Church because of the absence of archaeological, DNA, geographic or historic proof. I didn't leave the Church because of polygamy, denying the blacks the priesthood or the questions surrounding the translation of the Book of Abraham.
I simply left because the soft, gentle whisperings of the spirit told me that the LDS faith was not true. Me and my family have been very content, peaceful and happy since deciding to make the break."
Beautifully said. I don't think I could explain any better, my reasons for leaving.
"Jodi | 2:09 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
I didn't leave the Church because of the absence of archaeological, DNA, geographic or historic proof. I didn't leave the Church because of polygamy, denying the blacks the priesthood or the questions surrounding the translation of the Book of Abraham.
I simply left because the soft, gentle whisperings of the spirit told me that the LDS faith was not true. Me and my family have been very content, peaceful and happy since deciding to make the break."
Beautifully said. I don't think I could explain any better, my reasons for leaving.
Chris Plummer RE Pardon Me, But | 3:29 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
Wiki is fine as long as the references stack up. Its the way of the future.
The internet has a lot of useful information but should be a starting point for
more research. If you dont' check your sources its your fault... but it is
certainly more reliable then DMN comments.
Wrong Place | 3:41 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
The scientists are not looking in the right place. In the BOM it says Lehi is a
descendent of Manasseh.
�And Aminadi was a descendant of Nephi, who was the son of Lehi, who came out of the land of Jerusalem, who was a descendant of Manasseh, who was the son of Joseph who was sold into Egypt by the hands of his brethren.� Alma 10:3
Manasah was one of two sons of Joseph. Joseph married an Egyptian
� And Pharaoh called Joseph's name Zaphnathpaaneah; and he gave him to wife Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On. Gen 41:45.
And unto Joseph were born two sons before the years of famine came, which Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On bare unto him.
Gen 41:51
And Joseph called the name of the firstborn Manasseh: And the name of the second called he Ephraim: Gen 41:52
Maybe if the researchers studied the DNA of the Egyptians and the Asians and the aboriginal populations of North and South America, they would find a common link there. None of Jacobs other children married Egyptians save Joseph.
�And Aminadi was a descendant of Nephi, who was the son of Lehi, who came out of the land of Jerusalem, who was a descendant of Manasseh, who was the son of Joseph who was sold into Egypt by the hands of his brethren.� Alma 10:3
Manasah was one of two sons of Joseph. Joseph married an Egyptian
� And Pharaoh called Joseph's name Zaphnathpaaneah; and he gave him to wife Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On. Gen 41:45.
And unto Joseph were born two sons before the years of famine came, which Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On bare unto him.
Gen 41:51
And Joseph called the name of the firstborn Manasseh: And the name of the second called he Ephraim: Gen 41:52
Maybe if the researchers studied the DNA of the Egyptians and the Asians and the aboriginal populations of North and South America, they would find a common link there. None of Jacobs other children married Egyptians save Joseph.
Ok, you guys | 4:01 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
First I used Wikipedia to dumb things down for everyone, one really should do
their own extensive research on any topic, so spend some time researching the
Haplogroup X especially subgroup X2. I just get tired of hearing people say
there is no ancient DNA evidence that links Native Americans with people from
the Israel area. From the recent research available its clear that many North
American Native Indians have this subgroup. Honestly, I think this research is
interesting and demands more discussion, but whether it "proves"
anything is unclear nor unimportant to me. I believe the Book of Mormon is true
regardless and I have my reasons.
Raymond | 4:42 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
Des.News should do a blog on why we left the church...it would be a hit!
I left too--and I'm a happy camper with GOOD DNA!
I left too--and I'm a happy camper with GOOD DNA!
Wikipedia | 4:43 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
I hope you all realize that Wikipedia can be altered online by anyone at
anytime. Please don't use it as your factual basis for anything.
Re JT Browning | 4:50 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
RE: 12:06 p.m. Aug. 25, Please provide archeological evidence for the
following.
RE: 12:06 p.m. Aug. 25, Please provide archeological evidence for the following.
The Flood
Evidence that Joseph of Egypt really existed surely if he was one of
their leaders, there should be something Egyptian that mentions him.
Evidence of Moses ever being in Egypt from archeological finds and
also evidence of the plagues and the Hebrews leaving Egypt.
Solomon�s mines. They are mentioned in the Bible.
Location of the Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.
The ark of the Covenant along with the tablets of Moses
The Garden of Eden
BTW, there are dozens of cities and locations mentioned in the bible which have no archaeological evidence to support they ever existed.
One final question, name any scientific evidence that supports these civilizations in the Bible.
Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites. Amorites,
RE: 12:06 p.m. Aug. 25, Please provide archeological evidence for the following.
The Flood
Evidence that Joseph of Egypt really existed surely if he was one of
their leaders, there should be something Egyptian that mentions him.
Evidence of Moses ever being in Egypt from archeological finds and
also evidence of the plagues and the Hebrews leaving Egypt.
Solomon�s mines. They are mentioned in the Bible.
Location of the Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.
The ark of the Covenant along with the tablets of Moses
The Garden of Eden
BTW, there are dozens of cities and locations mentioned in the bible which have no archaeological evidence to support they ever existed.
One final question, name any scientific evidence that supports these civilizations in the Bible.
Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites. Amorites,
To Jodi | 4:58 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
The Holy Ghost confirms TRUTH, not something that is FALSE.
Have a nice day.
Have a nice day.
Thomas | 5:14 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
Unlike some of the other posters, I am still active in the Church. I choose
freely and for what I believe are sound, rational reasons to believe in God.
That choice has led me to what I choose to believe is a sound understanding of
some of his characteristics, his relationship with us, and his will for us.
Although none of these things that I believe is capable of being proven by the ordinary tools of physical evidence and reason, neither is there anything in reason to disprove them. To paraphrase President Monson, my faith in these things did not come to me through science, and science (not "so-called science" -- what a destructive phrase!) cannot touch them. The gospel as presented by the LDS Church is in accord with most of these things.
Mormonism does, however, make some historical and doctrinal claims that I am fairly and honestly convinced are either strongly contradicted by the best evidence, or are incompatible with what I believe to be the nature of God.
Then again, so does pretty much any church -- and I firmly believe faith is not something we were meant to practice alone. May God grant us wisdom.
Although none of these things that I believe is capable of being proven by the ordinary tools of physical evidence and reason, neither is there anything in reason to disprove them. To paraphrase President Monson, my faith in these things did not come to me through science, and science (not "so-called science" -- what a destructive phrase!) cannot touch them. The gospel as presented by the LDS Church is in accord with most of these things.
Mormonism does, however, make some historical and doctrinal claims that I am fairly and honestly convinced are either strongly contradicted by the best evidence, or are incompatible with what I believe to be the nature of God.
Then again, so does pretty much any church -- and I firmly believe faith is not something we were meant to practice alone. May God grant us wisdom.
Emma | 5:55 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
I figured it out!!!The Limited Geography apologists are completely willing to
concede that the American hemisphere has been populated for thousands of years
by Asians from Siberia. Adam and Eve get booted from Eden around 4000 BC in the
middle of the North America. And whom should they run into, the Asian/Siberian
descendent Native Americas. So of course they start mating with them. Then
somewhere along the way these people get back to the Middle East (the Adam and
Eve lineage via the ark) and become the Hebrews. Then Lehi who is a descendant
of Noah who is a descendant of Adam and Eve�s children who
happened to have mated with the Asians so long ago comes to the Americas and
brings back this Asian DNA. THAT is why it is undetectable. Of course the
Lamanites are going to have Asian blood in them. They got it when their
ancestors were here mingling with the Asians after the Garden of Eden ousting!
Wow! That was fun; can I be an apologist now?
And we have our reasons | 6:23 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
why we don't believe it! It's always going to be that way. That, in
itself, shows something.
God would not have a fraction of people believing in the "one, true way". God is Love.
God would not have a fraction of people believing in the "one, true way". God is Love.
Thomas | 6:32 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
Prosecutor: Absence of evidence is not *necessarily* evidence of absence. But
it can be -- when the circumstances are such that you should reasonably expect
evidence to be present.
For example, if a man is wearing shoes with bloody soles, and your kitchen floor is spotless and you know it hasn't been cleaned in the past five minutes, that is fairly good evidence that the man hasn't just walked through your kitchen wearing those shoes. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Is it more or less likely than not that a civilization of the size and sophistication described in the Book of Mormon could have existed for over a thousand years without leaving any reasonably unambiguous linguistic, cultural, technological, archaeological, or biological trace? I only have an undergraduate history degree, but my understanding is that it's very rare for a society of any size to vanish and leave no trace whatsoever.
For example, if a man is wearing shoes with bloody soles, and your kitchen floor is spotless and you know it hasn't been cleaned in the past five minutes, that is fairly good evidence that the man hasn't just walked through your kitchen wearing those shoes. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Is it more or less likely than not that a civilization of the size and sophistication described in the Book of Mormon could have existed for over a thousand years without leaving any reasonably unambiguous linguistic, cultural, technological, archaeological, or biological trace? I only have an undergraduate history degree, but my understanding is that it's very rare for a society of any size to vanish and leave no trace whatsoever.
Thomas | 6:36 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
re: 4:58 post -- Well, then, either Jodi or "To Jodi" -- or both -- is
either lying or mistaken.
Frankly, I think they're both *choosing* to interpret certain sensations they've felt as having originated from outside their own minds. They may be right, or they may be wrong. But how this translates into "knowledge" by either is something nobody has ever explained to my satisfaction. (Granted, I'm a bit mulish that way.)
Frankly, I think they're both *choosing* to interpret certain sensations they've felt as having originated from outside their own minds. They may be right, or they may be wrong. But how this translates into "knowledge" by either is something nobody has ever explained to my satisfaction. (Granted, I'm a bit mulish that way.)
To: To Jodi | 6:41 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
The spirit can tell us many things or guide us. This is basic Gospel Doctrine.
Observations | 6:52 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
RE: TO ROGER:
Why would anyone with any sense base their beleifs on what a comedian says?
REGARDING NAHOM:
IN a desert country with not many settlements how many Nahoms or any derivations of such could there be in a specific or even general area?
RE: RE: JT BROWNING:
IN a few thousand years what evidence will their be of all the old ghost towns in the old west?
The Vikings came to america (newfoundland) and made settlements and and only hundreds of years later there is hardly any evidence of them. What would have happen if didn't look for evidence of the vikings in american for another 3 thousand years what would we have found of them?
And if you would care to watch some of the science and discovery channels on TV, there is evidence of moses and his story. And they have found places, showing destruction by a unique type of fire that could have been sodom or gomorrah.
But it is up to us to get informed.
If people didn't build structures that could withstand time then it's extremely difficult to find evidence of them plus you must get lucky and dig in the right place.
Why would anyone with any sense base their beleifs on what a comedian says?
REGARDING NAHOM:
IN a desert country with not many settlements how many Nahoms or any derivations of such could there be in a specific or even general area?
RE: RE: JT BROWNING:
IN a few thousand years what evidence will their be of all the old ghost towns in the old west?
The Vikings came to america (newfoundland) and made settlements and and only hundreds of years later there is hardly any evidence of them. What would have happen if didn't look for evidence of the vikings in american for another 3 thousand years what would we have found of them?
And if you would care to watch some of the science and discovery channels on TV, there is evidence of moses and his story. And they have found places, showing destruction by a unique type of fire that could have been sodom or gomorrah.
But it is up to us to get informed.
If people didn't build structures that could withstand time then it's extremely difficult to find evidence of them plus you must get lucky and dig in the right place.
HCW | 7:02 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
People give Joseph Smith to much credit for assuming he wrote the Book of Mormon
on his own. The only evidence to prove he wrote it is speculative. He would
have needed help from others to accomplish such a deceit.
There is no evidence that any disgruntled member came forward and admitted to the public that it was just a big lie and they participated in it. To say that Joseph Smith wrote the BOM is just a groundless theory with no proof to back it up whatsoever.
There is plenty of evidence however that other people saw the actual plates and the angel and have written signed testimonies to that effect which they never denied even on their death beds. There was even a female witness, Mary Whitmer.
Now if someone can come up with evidence showing these people were out to deceive and were total frauds or can find some affidavit that they renounced their testimony and claimed it was all a lie; that would be a smoking gun. Until, then, I am sticking with Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.
There is no evidence that any disgruntled member came forward and admitted to the public that it was just a big lie and they participated in it. To say that Joseph Smith wrote the BOM is just a groundless theory with no proof to back it up whatsoever.
There is plenty of evidence however that other people saw the actual plates and the angel and have written signed testimonies to that effect which they never denied even on their death beds. There was even a female witness, Mary Whitmer.
Now if someone can come up with evidence showing these people were out to deceive and were total frauds or can find some affidavit that they renounced their testimony and claimed it was all a lie; that would be a smoking gun. Until, then, I am sticking with Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.
Otis T. Spurlock | 7:08 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
Princeton Graduate wrote:
"Can we really call finding a stone with "NHM" as plausible evidence for a story which is so general as to be unprovable? Contrast this with the Bible's copious and irrefutable geographical, archaeological and historical evidence.
Hebrew doesn't have vowels, so NHM is (nun-chet-men). But since we don't know what vowels were supposed to be used, any other vowel permutation is equally likely: Nahum, Niham, Noham, Nuhim, Nuham and so on (25 different combinations are possible in fact, 30 if the second vowel is left out completely). So to appeal to the inscripton "NHM" as proving the location "Nahom" is really unfounded.
In any case, this is not the first time LDS explorers have tried to match a location with the place Nahom. If it is so easy to locate, why the continued list of contenders? In Biblical geography, we know there is one Jericho (located), one Babylon (located), one Nazareth (located), and so on. Mormons can't even positively locate one "town" from the Book of Mormon.
To make matters worse for the LDS apologists, the only evidence we have for the correct pronunciation of NHM is the extant pronunciation: "Nihm"."
Amen and well said brother.
"Can we really call finding a stone with "NHM" as plausible evidence for a story which is so general as to be unprovable? Contrast this with the Bible's copious and irrefutable geographical, archaeological and historical evidence.
Hebrew doesn't have vowels, so NHM is (nun-chet-men). But since we don't know what vowels were supposed to be used, any other vowel permutation is equally likely: Nahum, Niham, Noham, Nuhim, Nuham and so on (25 different combinations are possible in fact, 30 if the second vowel is left out completely). So to appeal to the inscripton "NHM" as proving the location "Nahom" is really unfounded.
In any case, this is not the first time LDS explorers have tried to match a location with the place Nahom. If it is so easy to locate, why the continued list of contenders? In Biblical geography, we know there is one Jericho (located), one Babylon (located), one Nazareth (located), and so on. Mormons can't even positively locate one "town" from the Book of Mormon.
To make matters worse for the LDS apologists, the only evidence we have for the correct pronunciation of NHM is the extant pronunciation: "Nihm"."
Amen and well said brother.
Needles | 7:30 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
I can't believe this is a story, AGAIN. Leave it alone, the more you
mormons try to justify the mormon story, the sillier you look. It is foregone
conclusion that your teachings are mistaken and if you want to believe that is
fine but stop making a mockery of yourselves, I am even embarrassed through my
association with the mormon culture! BTW who are you trying to convince us or
the brothren?
Anonymous | 7:35 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
There is no doubt in my mind that Joseph Smith, with the help of his three fine
friends composed a nice BoM, so as to make a new church. They were so brilliant.
Carl | 7:42 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
I didn't leave the Church because it made no sense to me. I didn't
leave the Church because DNA disproves the Book of Mormon. I didn't leave
the Church because of any intellectual reason.
I haven't left the Church.
I think it holds up quite well. It makes sense to me. DNA doesn't prove anything, one way or the other.
I believe the Church's claims to be true. And, on top of that, I think they're extremely good news, and quite satisfying. I'm very happy.
I haven't left the Church.
I think it holds up quite well. It makes sense to me. DNA doesn't prove anything, one way or the other.
I believe the Church's claims to be true. And, on top of that, I think they're extremely good news, and quite satisfying. I'm very happy.
More thoughts | 7:58 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
Those who claim Nahom is not evidence for the Book of Mormon simply haven't
fully studied the issue. There is ONE and only ONE location for Nahom: the spot
where the German (non-LDS) archaeologists discovered. Previous to this late 20th
century find, it was speculated that Nahom could be in more than one place. But
the find gave a more exact location.
Some ask how can a civilization as described in the BOM disappear without a trace, and not be known today? I ask, how do you know some of the Mesoamerican sites today are NOT from BOM times? How do we know the Olmec civilization was not a BOM civilization? If we found a BOM civilization, how could we positively without a doubt prove it? How would one recognize it? Some ancient American civilizations left no clue of what they called themselves. They fit the time, location, and other descriptions as in the BOM, but since they left no trace of what they called themselves, one is left to speculate. Some LDS archaeologists believe that we HAVE discovered BOM civilizations - they just can't FOR SURE verify it.
Some ask how can a civilization as described in the BOM disappear without a trace, and not be known today? I ask, how do you know some of the Mesoamerican sites today are NOT from BOM times? How do we know the Olmec civilization was not a BOM civilization? If we found a BOM civilization, how could we positively without a doubt prove it? How would one recognize it? Some ancient American civilizations left no clue of what they called themselves. They fit the time, location, and other descriptions as in the BOM, but since they left no trace of what they called themselves, one is left to speculate. Some LDS archaeologists believe that we HAVE discovered BOM civilizations - they just can't FOR SURE verify it.
Rulon | 8:10 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
I presume that you folks think that because no DNA has been found that therefor
some of us should quit being members. Well!! for your information, I know this
the only true church. I was raised to know it. So take your grumbles and dumb
words some place else! We don't need your kind because we are BETTER than
all you doubters!
Jeron | 8:19 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
I understand the DNA controversy but that did not shake my faith. With that
being said, seeing a five billion dollar mall being built and the opulence and
excess built into church properties as a show of force and presence of power has
turned me away. These outrageous expenses on material items are shameful.
In comparison there are small percentages of these outlandish expenses that are brought to the needy and poor. You DNA skeptics can claim what you want but I know truth and the LDS church is not it!
In comparison there are small percentages of these outlandish expenses that are brought to the needy and poor. You DNA skeptics can claim what you want but I know truth and the LDS church is not it!
Thomas | 8:24 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
Why do I think the Olmecs aren't the Jaredites? Short answer: absolutely
no Old World-related artifacts, linguistic or cultural traces, or pretty much
anything at all.
Frankly, it's just as likely the Olmecs were primordial Vikings (Thor Heyerdahl thought so) or Africans as Jaredites.
Frankly, it's just as likely the Olmecs were primordial Vikings (Thor Heyerdahl thought so) or Africans as Jaredites.
Jason | 8:42 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
Ok, RULON
Have it your way, but you are not better than anyone else. It's good though, that you truly believe something that is very hard for some gulp down. Good day, sir. Live and let live, as I've heard said.
Have it your way, but you are not better than anyone else. It's good though, that you truly believe something that is very hard for some gulp down. Good day, sir. Live and let live, as I've heard said.
HellOoooo out there | 8:46 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
Does anyone ever get the feeling that you are just talking to rocks on these
blogs, or is just me? Kinda scary just like DNA.
Sarah | 9:19 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
If the "spirit" whispers to you something that is contrary to the
teachings of the Gospel, then it wasn't the Spirit of the Lord that spoke
to you.
I don't believe because I want to believe, I don't believe because I've been brainwashed to believe, and I don't believe because everybody around me does, so I'd feel more comfortable if I pretended too. My life would be so much easier if I DIDN'T believe. But I do believe, because I've had not just one witness of the truth, but thousands, over many years. I believe because I've seen the power of the Book of Mormon (and the rest of the scriptures) to change not only my life, but the lives of everyone around me.
All the petty little arguments and supposed "controversies" that people throw out don't change that. They don't disprove anything, and not because I'm grasping at straws to try to explain it, but because I know that the Lord reveals things in His own time. Eventually, we'll all know the truthfulness of all things, and we'll see how they all fit together. Just chill out, it's not a race to see who knows the most first.
I don't believe because I want to believe, I don't believe because I've been brainwashed to believe, and I don't believe because everybody around me does, so I'd feel more comfortable if I pretended too. My life would be so much easier if I DIDN'T believe. But I do believe, because I've had not just one witness of the truth, but thousands, over many years. I believe because I've seen the power of the Book of Mormon (and the rest of the scriptures) to change not only my life, but the lives of everyone around me.
All the petty little arguments and supposed "controversies" that people throw out don't change that. They don't disprove anything, and not because I'm grasping at straws to try to explain it, but because I know that the Lord reveals things in His own time. Eventually, we'll all know the truthfulness of all things, and we'll see how they all fit together. Just chill out, it's not a race to see who knows the most first.
Tina | 9:24 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
Hummmm, Thomas---you have a good point.
To Sarah | 10:11 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
From Emma
The "spirit" whispered to me that it was wrong for Joseph Smith to marry 14 year old Helen Mar Kimball. The "spirit" whispered to me that is was wrong for Joseph to marry 11 women who were already married. The "spirit" whispered to me that is creepy to put a peep stone in a hat and put your face in the hat and receive the translation for the Book of Mormon. The "spirit" whispered to me that the sun gets its light from nuclear fusion not Kolob. The "spirit" whispered to me that there were some serious contradictions in Joseph's various accounts of the first vision. And finally the "spirit" shouted to me that there is a reason that there is no Hebrew DNA in Native Americans. Hint: (because he made the whole story up) BTW any of these facts are easy to research and verify with a simple google search. I have church friendly sources to prove every one!
The "spirit" whispered to me that it was wrong for Joseph Smith to marry 14 year old Helen Mar Kimball. The "spirit" whispered to me that is was wrong for Joseph to marry 11 women who were already married. The "spirit" whispered to me that is creepy to put a peep stone in a hat and put your face in the hat and receive the translation for the Book of Mormon. The "spirit" whispered to me that the sun gets its light from nuclear fusion not Kolob. The "spirit" whispered to me that there were some serious contradictions in Joseph's various accounts of the first vision. And finally the "spirit" shouted to me that there is a reason that there is no Hebrew DNA in Native Americans. Hint: (because he made the whole story up) BTW any of these facts are easy to research and verify with a simple google search. I have church friendly sources to prove every one!
RE: To sarah | 11:22 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
There is no Hebrew DNA because Lehi was through mannaseh who mother was
egyptian.
So, DUH.
And who knows what DNA the jaredites and mulikites are. Although it is thought the jaredites could have had mongloid dna.
If you really have information why not share it or stop making baseless claims.
Claims with foundation are worth nothing more than a pile of you know what.
RE NEEDLES: your opinions are worth the same.
So, DUH.
And who knows what DNA the jaredites and mulikites are. Although it is thought the jaredites could have had mongloid dna.
If you really have information why not share it or stop making baseless claims.
Claims with foundation are worth nothing more than a pile of you know what.
RE NEEDLES: your opinions are worth the same.
Jason | 11:33 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
I'm with Jeron
Looks like the church puts money towards looking good to the rest of the world. Not a good place for money of hard working members. It doesn't look good when so many are in need and go without... even LDS members. I really hate vanity! I seen people give their last dime towards tithing.
I don't think they will find DNA to support the B.ofM. It just wont ever happen!
Looks like the church puts money towards looking good to the rest of the world. Not a good place for money of hard working members. It doesn't look good when so many are in need and go without... even LDS members. I really hate vanity! I seen people give their last dime towards tithing.
I don't think they will find DNA to support the B.ofM. It just wont ever happen!
Clark | 12:39 a.m. Aug. 27, 2008
For those of you who have written in, saying you left the LDS Church are now
happier than ever, I hope I get to meet you one day. The main reason is because
everyone I have known in my life who was active in the LDS Church at one time,
but have since left the church, are some of the MOST bitter, hateful, depressing
people I have ever met in my life.
Over the years, I have had ex-mormon co-workers, business customers and distant family members. WITHOUT EXCEPTION, these people have chips on their shoulders the size of the Grand Canyon.
For example, I once worked at a hotel where an ex-mormon co-worker of mine was continually trying to get me in trouble, including telling guests at our hotel that I would say nasty things about them behind their back. My manager refused to hear my side of the story so I finally quit.
There may be lots of unanswered questions about DNA and the Book of Mormon, but if leaving the LDS Church means becoming like the ex-mormons I know, I will gladly stay LDS until the day I die.
Over the years, I have had ex-mormon co-workers, business customers and distant family members. WITHOUT EXCEPTION, these people have chips on their shoulders the size of the Grand Canyon.
For example, I once worked at a hotel where an ex-mormon co-worker of mine was continually trying to get me in trouble, including telling guests at our hotel that I would say nasty things about them behind their back. My manager refused to hear my side of the story so I finally quit.
There may be lots of unanswered questions about DNA and the Book of Mormon, but if leaving the LDS Church means becoming like the ex-mormons I know, I will gladly stay LDS until the day I die.
Clark | 1:42 a.m. Aug. 27, 2008
To Jeron 8:19 & Jason 11:33 - So, you're of the opinion that
environmentally friendly building projects which will create jobs, improve
infrastructure and possibly lower crime are nothing but unchristian and immoral,
correct?
What's ironic is, whenever the LDS Church assists poor people throughout the world, or helps out in the aftermath of a natural disaster, the critics attack the church for either not spending their money wisely enough or for allegedly having some hidden motive.
It seems no matter what, no matter what they do, the LDS Church is always wrong. Isn't that true, Jeron and Jason?
And as for the whole DNA debate, you Book of Mormon skeptics might be interested to know that the president of Iran recently held a summit of historians and writers, and the conclusion is, the Holocaust never happened.
I know most of you still believe the Holocaust happened, as do I, but the fact is, anyone it seems can now find some "expert" to support their cause. But just because someone has PhD behind their name doesn't mean their word is the final answer.
What's ironic is, whenever the LDS Church assists poor people throughout the world, or helps out in the aftermath of a natural disaster, the critics attack the church for either not spending their money wisely enough or for allegedly having some hidden motive.
It seems no matter what, no matter what they do, the LDS Church is always wrong. Isn't that true, Jeron and Jason?
And as for the whole DNA debate, you Book of Mormon skeptics might be interested to know that the president of Iran recently held a summit of historians and writers, and the conclusion is, the Holocaust never happened.
I know most of you still believe the Holocaust happened, as do I, but the fact is, anyone it seems can now find some "expert" to support their cause. But just because someone has PhD behind their name doesn't mean their word is the final answer.
That's so wonderful | 8:45 a.m. Aug. 27, 2008
that religious organizations help the poor and needy. Does it make any one of
them true? No, it does not.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- Jazz outlast Pistons in overtime 3:06 a.m.
- Utah Utes whip SDSU 3:05 a.m.
- BYU records with win 3:05 a.m.
- RSL dancing with soccer stars 3:04 a.m.
- Cougars turn focus to dreaded rivals 3:04 a.m.
- Dixie State campus briefs 3:03 a.m.
- Weber State campus briefs 3:02 a.m.
- UVU campus briefs 3:01 a.m.
- BYU campus briefs 2:59 a.m.
- Utah State campus briefs 2:58 a.m.
- Glenn Beck to enter politics?
- Can BYU throw vs. Air Force?
- Cougars cruise to victory in Hawaii
- Huntsman blasts media over trip
- Police link alcohol to murder
- Christian leaders not backing down
- BYU records with win
- TCU still has a chance
- Orem man acquitted in tot's death
- Religion cited in deportation fight
- Buttars wants to limit gay rights laws
192 - Palin plans tour stop in Utah173
- Glenn Beck to enter politics?129
- Palin's book shows she's unqualified122
- Officer cleared in Cardall Taser case103
- BYU cuts Women's Research Inst.100
- Jazz finally win in San Antonio98
- BYU records with win95
- Utes knock off rival Aggies93
- Huntsman pleased with Obama87
Latest comments
Beck is extremely smart, he is selling books and is very popular on TV. All...
@Mick, the Federal Govt is run by corporations through contributions and...
Lets bond together and hope for a REAL celebration SUnday night, can hardly...
I was on the playground too and some teachers came out and called us all to...
B.Y.U. has been a consistent a top 25 ranked winner under Max Hall. Hall has...
Did Timp win four in a row or 4 in 4 years?
You have a lot of growing up to do, It seems like you have not cxperienced...
The proposed ethics law puts roughly the same burden on a legislator that a...
Hall ACTUALLY broke the all timme wins record vs WYO last week. I guess...
Sounds to me like Kraig Powell may be a candidate for resignation. So long,...
Advertisements
However, the claims of Joseph Smith are the kind of extraordinary claims that (as the saying goes) require extraordinary evidence. I believe that any person claiming to have received divine revelation has the burden of demonstrating the claim's truth.
In fact, I would go so far as to recognize a rebuttable presumption that any claim to prophetic inspiration is false until proven otherwise. Why? Because if you believe that there is only one true church and prophet, the vast majority of prophetic claims are false. For example, if the LDS Church is the true church, then the leaders of the various LDS splinter groups -- all of which claim to be led by true prophets -- are false prophets. I would say that for every true prophet, there must be at least a hundred false ones. That suggests that skepticism of prophetic claims is warranted.
Whether "NHM," "ships of Tarshish," King Benjamin's address, and other evidences for the Book of Mormon sufficiently overcome the evidences to the contrary is up to our honest judgment.