Reader comments
DNA claims rebutted on Book of Mormon
448 comments | Read story
Paula | 4:05 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
Did he really say that the DNA research only involves mitochondrial DNA? If so,
he is greatly mistaken. The Y chromosome is also very important in DNA research.
I'm not sure why we'd want to take the word of a software consultant
when the subject is DNA.
kodos | 4:39 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
Gardner talks as if Murphy and Southerton simply made up the idea that the
American Indians are primarily descended from BOM peoples out of whole cloth.
They didn't. That idea has been taught by prophets since Joseph Smith, and
is still claimed in the introduction the Book of Mormon published by the church.
Is Gardner also ready to criticize the church and its leaders for these
teachings?
Comments continue below
Fan of Science | 4:48 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
First, Jaredites referred to in the Book of Mormon as early inhabitants of the
Americas were likely from Asia. The number of Jaredite names used by the
Nephites indicate extensive interaction between these groups. Therefore, those
who claim the presence or even predominance of Asiatic DNA in the ancient
inhabitants of America refutes the Book of Mormon haven't really studied
the record closely enough or don't understand what they have read.
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.
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.
Falcon | 5:53 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
Is there anyone outside of LDS circles that believe the Book of Mormon is a
factual history of a real people?
ma`at | 5:54 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
Nowhere does the Book of Mormon state or even imply that the Lehites came to an
empty continent. As Nibley pointed out long ago, the Jaredites appear to have
been Asian, and colonizers would have disseminated from their civilization
throughout its long history. Also, their "war of extinction" almost
certainly left any number of stragglers. In fact, there is nothing in the Book
of Mormon to indicate that the Jaredites came to an empty conduct. This is to
say nothing of other trans-oceaning migrations, none of which are precluded by
the Book of Mormon. How would one even begin to attempt to get a
"Nephite" genetic signature? It's high time that provocateurs
Southerton and Murphy got over themselves, and their irrelevant research.
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.
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.
Mark | 6:14 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
It is impossible to "prove" the Book of Mormon true or false on the
basis of scientific evidence. All we know for sure is those that hate the LDS
Church will use any and all means possible in their attempts to destroy it.
I'm no scientist... | 6:58 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
But it doesn't take a genius to know that you can't trace DNA to a
group of people that originated in 600 BC from a tribe that no longer exists
(Joseph). What "Hebrews" would we be sourcing as the original DNA
pool?? The only ones we have today are Jews (only one tribe) who come from all
kinds of countries around Europe. So, no DNA source to compare with.
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?
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?
Anonymous | 7:18 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
Am I supposed to believe in a software engineer over the word of DNA/Genetic
scientist? That's an intellectual mis match. I am a mechanic, maybe I can
try and become a key note speaker at an Economics seminar.
Clark Roger | 7:25 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
From my point of view, the whole issue about the Book of Mormon and DNA sounds a
lot like the debates different "experts" have about 9/11 conspiracies,
or whether or not The Holocaust occured. In a nutshell, no matter what your
opinion is, anyone can find a so-called expert to agree with them on
anything.
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.
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.
Ryan | 7:26 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
People have devoted their entire lives to trying to disprove the Book of Mormon,
and it is ever a tragic waste that has availed them nothing (in nearly 200 years
of trying).
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.
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.
Evidence | 7:30 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
Are you kidding me??? If Joseph Smith wanted to write a book to start his new
religion, he could have clearly chosen a much simpler way of doing things.
Instead, he produced a book, at 23 years old, that has 1,000 years plus of
history, culture, systems of worship, military strategy, philosophy,
argumentation, economics, literary forms, criminology, sociology, etc., etc.
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".
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".
Evidence | 7:39 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
The scientific and historical evidence regarding the mortal origins of the Book
of Mormon is vast and growing every day. However, does that make the church
vanish? Of course not. For millions of faithful members, science and history are
no substitute for the positive feelings they experience from their beliefs.
People don't embrace their religious beliefs because the scientific data
support their decision, they embrace their religion because it helps them manage
the vicissitudes of life.
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.
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.
Andino | 7:50 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
Carrie Moore needs to do a little more research into the Book of Mormon (printed
by the newspaper's owner), given her comment that "LDS members have
grown up believing that the only people who ever migrated to the Americas
descended from Lehi's family in the Book of Mormon."
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.
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.
Iluminar | 7:58 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
I have not read any of the studies mentioned here, but I find it interesting
that they talk about the "American Indians" as if they were
descendants of one single group. It is an accepted fact that groups such as the
Vikings, among others, lived in some areas of the Americas. With Ra II, Thor
Heyerdahl demonstrated how people from the Ancient world could have traveled
from Africa to the Americas.
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.
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.
Camille | 7:59 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
I will never look at a scientists "findings" as fact. They can say
what they want, but I for one will believe what I feel in my heart where the
Book of Mormon is true or not. I have read it and I believe it to be true. A
scientist can print anything he/she wants but it won't make me believe any
other way nor can anyone else.
j | 7:59 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
The American Continent was already inhabited before Lehi - The Jaredites - and
inhabited by others shortly after Lehi elsewhere unbeknownst to them - the
Mulekites- who is to say that there weren't other people from other lands
who migrated here. Nowhere in the Book of Mormon does it say that only a select
group of people lived here. In fact, it states that others would be led to this
continent throughout history. The American Indians could have genetic traces to
anyone.
Hmmm | 8:01 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
There is more proof that the book is a work of fiction than a true book. Some of
the principles in the book are great (like the Bible) and that is where the idea
of the book came from.
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.
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.
Lame | 8:01 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
The only way this experiment would work is if you could do some sort of Jurassic
Park analysis and find the actual remains of someone who we know for sure was a
person in that book. Do a bone analysis or test blood in clothing, or whatever
they do. The problem is finding someone you know lived during that time. There
is no way in this world you can do DNA samples on descendants hundreds and
thousands years later to find the DNA that matched those in Jerusulem...no way
at all. If they can, you have to wonder what unaccredited junior college these
"scientists" attended.
Henry Drummond | 8:04 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
I'm not sure why the Church is so concerned about DNA evidence. Scientists
have pointed to numerous pieces of evidence that point to Asia as the origin of
Native Americans. This includes language, archeology, and customs. Meanwhile
the Book of Mormon contains many references to an Iron age culture in North
America for which there is no evidence. It also contains many anachronisms
including references to Cyrus the Great who wasn't even born when the Book
of Mormon peoples left Palestine. Science has always been at odds with this and
other religious beliefs. Why not just leave belief in the Book of Mormon in the
arena of faith and not try to contort science in an attempt to make it fit. A
man can't serve two masters.
Genealogist | 8:15 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
I looked at the online DNA databases a couple of years ago to see if it was
worth spending the money to get into it. I looked at some of the results in my
extended family tree (large well-researched Mormon family). They were so
laughable. Close relatives were not showing up as being related to each other.
It was happening enough in the DNA record so that you couldn't say that it
was due to other factors. So let's all run out and change our theology
based on a new technology that has problems in looking back four or five
generations.
Mike Hodge | 8:17 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
In the face of heavy attacks on the "historicity" of the Book of
Mormon, the significance of the "DNA evidence" isn't that it
disproves the book's historicity, but rather like many other
"evidences", it clearly does not lend any "scientific"
support to the Church's official postion that the Book is of pre-columbian
origin. Those that believe the Book of Mormon to be historical will continue to
do so no matter what the "evidence" shows because, when all is said
and done, such belief is mostly based upon faith.
Dr DNA | 8:23 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
The arguments used to question the use of DNA evidence in this article were the
same used to question the evidence that 99.9% linked OJ to murder. There's
always a little doubt in science, it's just whether you're willing to
go with the majority of evidence or a very slight chance it might be wrong. If
you were gambling money, I'd bet you'd go with the odds.
metamoracoug | 8:33 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
For those concerned about the questionable credentials of Mr. Gardner or for
anyone who cares to educate themselves on this topic, Michael Whiting (PhD,
professor at BYU, curator and director of the BYU DNA sequencing center) has
writing an article which addresses the Book of Mormon/DNA question. The article
is availabel on-line through the FARMS website.
The Change | 8:42 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
I guess after reading this article, one seems to forgot the FACT that after the
supposed "curse" from God that there would be definite change in DNA
as well.
I can't explain why the Africans and Asians and Eurpoeans as well as the smaller tribal groups do not have links in their DNA since they are all supposed decendents of Adam.
Question is, what are you trying to prove???
I can't explain why the Africans and Asians and Eurpoeans as well as the smaller tribal groups do not have links in their DNA since they are all supposed decendents of Adam.
Question is, what are you trying to prove???
Tysonatthemovies | 8:44 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
Who cares? You will never convince an unbeliever nor a believer of belief or
disbelief respectively. People are gonna find evidence for either viewpoint and
bend and twist it until it fits their viewpoints. Personally I don't buy
into Mormonism, but maybe I'm wrong. So let people live they want within
reason, don't push your religious notions on others and have some
tolerance.
The only absolute is change! | 8:54 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
I find it interesting how so many hang their hat on the current scientific trend
as the absolute and final proof and then in 5 years when a new theory comes out
which modifies, changes, "updates" or invalidates previous theories or
practices, they then claim that this current line of thought is the absolute and
final word.
So to all of you who absolutely believe that this current discussion of DNA is the last and final say and the Book of Mormon is absolutely invalidated, wait for a few years science will change as it always has and we can have another discussion about your absolute knowledge.
All of this doesn't matter anyway because an angel could appear on your bed at night and tell you it is true and you wouldn't believe. One day we will all KNOW and if we are wrong I'll apologize to you personally. Wait I won't be a person...?
As an aside...how do you feel the world is made a better place if you discredit the Book of Mormon? Does the hate help you sleep at night?
How could you improve the world if you spent this energy on something worthwhile? Just curious.
So to all of you who absolutely believe that this current discussion of DNA is the last and final say and the Book of Mormon is absolutely invalidated, wait for a few years science will change as it always has and we can have another discussion about your absolute knowledge.
All of this doesn't matter anyway because an angel could appear on your bed at night and tell you it is true and you wouldn't believe. One day we will all KNOW and if we are wrong I'll apologize to you personally. Wait I won't be a person...?
As an aside...how do you feel the world is made a better place if you discredit the Book of Mormon? Does the hate help you sleep at night?
How could you improve the world if you spent this energy on something worthwhile? Just curious.
Steve Clark | 8:56 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
The Flat Earth Society would welcome with open arms the likes of Brant Gardner
and his Book of Mormon Archaeological Forum. And speaking of Brant
Gardner's spiritual software, he could use a serious upgrade.
Mr Big | 9:00 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
That there Book Of Mormon is sure one big fat comic book! Whoo eeeee! It shore
is boys!
Hogwash Hogwash | 9:01 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
Today's science is tomorrow's fiction. The fact that these two
"scientists" are speaking in absolutes speaks volumes about their
hidden (or not so hidden) agenda. The variables in their "conclusive"
study, and the fact that the "scientists" failed to adequately address
these variables in their study leave them open for peer review attack. I would
agree that the speaker lacks credentials, but others with credentials are saying
the same thing -- the speaker is only making restatements of the peer review
literature.
1. The adequacy of the the source DNA is highly questionable. Without a pure Lehi sample, any speculation to connect new DNA with old DNA is just that -- speculation -- not science.
2. DNA lines extinguish for known and unknown reasons. No one can speak with authority until the cause of DNA line extinction can be excluded -- which it cannot at this time.
3. Genetic isolation followed by catastrophic events such as genocide and massive casualties of a plague can substantially change the DNA map. Where have the scientists addressed this issue?
Absolute positions in science do not make good science.
1. The adequacy of the the source DNA is highly questionable. Without a pure Lehi sample, any speculation to connect new DNA with old DNA is just that -- speculation -- not science.
2. DNA lines extinguish for known and unknown reasons. No one can speak with authority until the cause of DNA line extinction can be excluded -- which it cannot at this time.
3. Genetic isolation followed by catastrophic events such as genocide and massive casualties of a plague can substantially change the DNA map. Where have the scientists addressed this issue?
Absolute positions in science do not make good science.
Jake | 9:04 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
Gardner is one of the more prolific apologists defending the Book of Mormon
against scientific evidence. LDS apologetics is primarialy made up of
non-professionals writing outside their area of expertice.
The real problem for the BOM is its historicity. Nothing matches reality. It fails all historical, anthropological, archeological, and reasonable scientific tests. If you think it's only "anti-mormons" who think this take your best evidence for the book to a regular academic professional and see how they view it. Take the BOM to a mesoamerican archeologist or a Mayan expert. Take the Book of Abraham to a Egyptologist. Take the quotes from the brass plates inside the BOM to a scholar of the Hebrew bible.
The real problem for the BOM is its historicity. Nothing matches reality. It fails all historical, anthropological, archeological, and reasonable scientific tests. If you think it's only "anti-mormons" who think this take your best evidence for the book to a regular academic professional and see how they view it. Take the BOM to a mesoamerican archeologist or a Mayan expert. Take the Book of Abraham to a Egyptologist. Take the quotes from the brass plates inside the BOM to a scholar of the Hebrew bible.
Skeptic | 9:05 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
Everyone knows that America was really populated by Hobbits who came across on
the Brooklyn Bridge (which, by the way, is for sale).
Examine the source | 9:14 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
Examine the character of the "source" of the BOM, then make a logical
determination as to the validity of the book. In light of the fact that we do
not have the gold plates, we do not have the translator to interview, or his
associates, we are left with very little, perhaps only faith. In this case, a
logical person can look at the type of person who produced it and make some
reasonable judgement about the liklihood of it being true. I say this not
intending to sway a person one way or another.
Science Vs. Religion | 9:15 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
How many people believe in God?
How many scientific theories have remained the same for more than 50 years?
I think I will go with the fact that more and more people believe in a God, than with science that can't stand the power of tests for more than a life time.
Science, sorry to say, does change facts. God never changes. But science and "fact" does.
How many scientific theories have remained the same for more than 50 years?
I think I will go with the fact that more and more people believe in a God, than with science that can't stand the power of tests for more than a life time.
Science, sorry to say, does change facts. God never changes. But science and "fact" does.
Stephen | 9:17 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
It's interesting how science is completely dismissed by Mormons when its
conclusion don't support Mormonism, yet fully embraced when it does.
Telavir | 9:22 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
The lost tribes were taken north and east possibly to the northeastern Caspian
region. The Jews intermingled primarily with Europeans. Lehi was from those ten
tribes. So what they're saying is that the American Indians have more in
common with peoples living west of Mongolia than the modern Jews. And I'm
supposed to be surprised?
On Faith and Science | 9:24 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
Ye shall receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.
I feel sorry for those who are dupped by the "learned" experts that claim science as their religion. There are still so many variables that are simply not known. In addition to the Jaredites and other possible groups already on the American continent, The Book of Mormon ends in about 421 AD. There is much that could have happened between then and Columbus' landing.
In the end, it comes down to a question of faith, not science, that will win the day. May you try Moroni's challenge to read the book, pray about its authenticity, and receive the spiritual conviction that I know will come.
I feel sorry for those who are dupped by the "learned" experts that claim science as their religion. There are still so many variables that are simply not known. In addition to the Jaredites and other possible groups already on the American continent, The Book of Mormon ends in about 421 AD. There is much that could have happened between then and Columbus' landing.
In the end, it comes down to a question of faith, not science, that will win the day. May you try Moroni's challenge to read the book, pray about its authenticity, and receive the spiritual conviction that I know will come.
Another Theory | 9:26 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
What makes everyone think that the Nephites don't have the same DNA as
Asians? Wasn't there a large group of people, larger than those that
remained in Israel that were taken captive and taken north and east. The Lost
Ten Tribes could have been the blood that makes up much of Asia. The Jews that
remained were scattered and their blood may not be pure - so in reality the DNA
similarity between the American Indian and Asia could be a witness that the book
is true. A testimony of God and truth is not found through science - scientific
theory can support or question your belief. But responsible science should look
at all the possibilities then list those options. But in the end each individual
can approuch God it see what truth is.
Dave | 9:27 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
Does this really matter? Science can't tell me why I like the way the sun
feels against my face, or what makes me me and not just a pile of protein.
Theology doesn't really explain how the internet works. The point of life
is to take all that we are given and do what is right. Luckily we have a choice
about what we do and believe. Maybe we should not enforce our individual beliefs
on others and focus our efforts on something good for all, like finding a cure
for cancer.
Anonymous | 9:30 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
Good points here regarding the BoM peoples coming from multiple sources
(including Asia, referencing Dr. Nibley). I know I've never met a scholar
who believes that the Lehites were the ancestors of *every* Native American...
One point that no one has made yet is that the book itself claims a genetic
change in the non-Nephite survivors. (Okay, not in so many words, but a genetic
change is the simplest way for God to work a physical change, although I'm
very willing to grant Him other options beyond our scientific understanding).
Catherine | 9:33 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
I prefer to spend my time pondering the deeper meaning of the Book of Mormon,
Chirst's teachings, and the many eternal truths it holds inside its pages.
I don't really care whether Lehi and his descendents were Asian or Hebrew;
whether there were already people in the America's when he came over; how
many times the Nephites and Lamanites got into a war; or who begat whom and on
what date. Read 3rd Nephi. Do you think Jesus has something more in mind for us
to learn and take away from this book?
Give Ear | 9:34 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
The leaders of the Church, including Pres Hinckley and Elder Ballard have
declared (more or less) that there will never be any external proof that the BoM
is true, it will always be a matter of faith and how one feels about it. If
there was proof then where would be the exercising of faith? So what if nothing
in the BoM agrees with what we know about ancient meso-american culture?
According to the Prophet and Apostles, it never will. Read B.H. Roberts'
treatment of the subject. It's entirely possible and consistent that the
Jaredites, Nephites and Lamanites were miraculously transported to another
planet entirely during their ocean voyages, just like Christ's teachings,
mission and atonement apply to all the other created worlds in the universe
past, present and future, whose inhabitants only hear of Him through their own
prophets. Perhaps they all have the BoM like we do. This should only increase
the wonder and awe at the marvelous work and a wonder that is the latter-day
restoration.
David Farnsworth | 9:34 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
I note that many of the attacks equate software engineer to biologist. Who are
you going to believe? But I am familiar with Brant Gardner's work. He knows
his stuff when it comes to Mesoamerica. The two so-called LDS scientists, on the
other hand, either know virtually nothing about Mesoamerica or about DNA. One is
an anthropologist. Why would HE know anything more about DNA than a software
engineer? The other is a biologist who, while knowing a few things about DNA,
knows nothing about Mesoamerica. Put them together and you get a remarkably
ignorant view of ancient America. And they are supposed to be the experts??
Brant Gardner, on the other hand, specialized in Mesoamerica. He can read their languages. He is a top authority on Mesoamerican culture. And he sees many hits between the Book of Mormon descriptions of society and what he knows about Mesoamerica. Which do you think is the authority here?
David Farnsworth
Brant Gardner, on the other hand, specialized in Mesoamerica. He can read their languages. He is a top authority on Mesoamerican culture. And he sees many hits between the Book of Mormon descriptions of society and what he knows about Mesoamerica. Which do you think is the authority here?
David Farnsworth
Moessers | 9:36 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
What's amazing to me is how so many people run around now and say, well,
sure, there could have been some asian people here too who got thrown into the
mix... yet for the last hundred and seventy years all we have heard from the LDS
church is how these native americans are the lamanites. Like everything else,
when there's something that challenges the doctrine or the belief of the
LDS church in a major way, they find a way to fit square pegs in round holes and
justify it away and or subtly change their view or position; and after enough
time, no one remembers how things used to be. So much for the same yesterday,
today, and forever.
Jon | 9:36 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
I don't think the church is concerned, it's just it's members.
The presidency doesn't fund studies, plus members of the church
shouldn't be basing their faith on scientific proof.
as far as what science states, most of the time science states a theory, NOT a fact. but it gets reported and media blitzed and comes off sounding like a fact. how many scientific 'facts' have been found wrong years later, or for that matter flip-flopped on over the course of time?
consider also, how long the bible has been around and how much of it has actually be found (lands, civilizations, etc) the bom has been around a lot less time...
as far as what science states, most of the time science states a theory, NOT a fact. but it gets reported and media blitzed and comes off sounding like a fact. how many scientific 'facts' have been found wrong years later, or for that matter flip-flopped on over the course of time?
consider also, how long the bible has been around and how much of it has actually be found (lands, civilizations, etc) the bom has been around a lot less time...
CHUCK | 9:37 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
Jaredites, Nephites, Mulekites, Zoram? Is this for real? You all need to read
the Book of Mormon from cover-to-cover and then ask yourself if it makes any
sense.
DNA Who? | 9:38 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
The Jews are one of 12, twelve, tribes from Israel..
So he is trying to prove the DNA of the Jews/Indians.
What about the tribe of Joseph? So says my blessing, not to mention the tribe of Ephraim or the tribe of Manasseh.. Where did the Asian tribe come from? Maybe Dan?
Come on people get serious.
The Book of Mormon is true, the ex- Bishop just hopes its not...
So he is trying to prove the DNA of the Jews/Indians.
What about the tribe of Joseph? So says my blessing, not to mention the tribe of Ephraim or the tribe of Manasseh.. Where did the Asian tribe come from? Maybe Dan?
Come on people get serious.
The Book of Mormon is true, the ex- Bishop just hopes its not...
Answer | 9:38 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
"Is there anyone outside of LDS circles that believe the Book of Mormon is
a factual history of a real people?" - Falcon
If there are they're not large in number. The reason for this is they would have to accept the coming of Lehi & the Jaredites by boat to the Americas. They would also have to admit that Joseph Smith translated it in 2 months with an education of a third grader. That then leads to admitting he had the power of translation from god, that the LDS Church is right, then they would have to join and then they wouldn't be outside the LDS Church any more.
If there are they're not large in number. The reason for this is they would have to accept the coming of Lehi & the Jaredites by boat to the Americas. They would also have to admit that Joseph Smith translated it in 2 months with an education of a third grader. That then leads to admitting he had the power of translation from god, that the LDS Church is right, then they would have to join and then they wouldn't be outside the LDS Church any more.
m&ms | 9:39 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
There's one 'minor' thing that the DNA experts forget. They seek
to find a link between the ancient hebrews & indians through the line of
Judah -- but the BoM tells us that Lehi was a descendant of Manassah -- from
Joseph -- who had a different mother than Judah. DNA lines generally follow the
matriarchial line and in this instance, that premise would be false to begin
with.
RE: Dr DNA | 9:47 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007
That's not a very good analogy. Lets make a few adjustments to show really
what we're arguing about. first OJ lived about 4,000 years which is at the
very least how far the DNA has to trace (The tribe of Joseph is lost and spread
throughout the world, so we're tracing back to Isaac). Second the DNA trace
we're using on this criminal is mixed about 50% with someone else's
geneology we don't know (Ismael, and Zoram). You know what I'm going
to stop here but it could go on much longer. I just want to say that it seems
very unscientific for people to come to such conclusive denials of the
historicity of the Book of Mormon based on the shaky ground of these type of DNA
tests. Science is always a never ending dialogue, some people don't
understand this and try to use science as a justification for pre-concieved
biases; I recognize that goes both ways, lets just keep it real
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.
- Utah women lag in higher education 1:16 a.m.
- Hatch empathizes with Muslims 1:14 a.m.
- Matheson gets no thanks from GOP 1:13 a.m.
- Mitchell seeks to block witnesses 1:12 a.m.
- Party insiders may take on Bennett 1:11 a.m.
- Input sought on nondiscrimination 1:11 a.m.
- Am. Fork band hopes for nationals 1:10 a.m.
- Healthy Toews leads Blackhawks 1:04 a.m.
- Sandy may give $10K to bowl game 12:45 a.m.
- Mayors compete for charity 12:43 a.m.
- TCU showdown has big implications
- Seniors helped BYU regroup
- Lambert surprisingly tops news
- Hope for single moms
- Bystanders framed for child porn
- Korver and Miles to be evaluated
- Soccer MVPs know how to win
- Utah Jazz Extra: Whose hot/not
- Matheson gets no thanks from GOP
- Newhouse Hotel, an explosive end
- House passes health care bill
228 - TCU showdown has big implications183
- Lobo suspended182
- Cougars crush hapless Cowboys154
- Utah Jazz fall apart against Kings131
- TCU 4th in AP poll; U. 16th, Y. 22nd118
- Thousands protest health bill114
- RSL rallies to advance103
- No 'backlash' for pioneers, gays analogy97
- Utes pound winless Lobos89
Meghan McCain, the daughter of former presidential candidate John...
Why do so many people live so close to refineries in Utah and elsewhere?
Advertisement
Latest comments
Sounds like a good option if you can't or won't switch to AT&T for the...
I worked with and around Bill Sederburg for 5 years while he was at...
hand. He needs to work on his moves to the basket and rebounding. Lateral...
play Fez or Koufos tonight. He went with a smaller line up and Boozer, Okur...
I've met Bennett before and he is a nice man. He also knows the Constitution...
That's never been a secret. Everyone will pay for it except those that don't...
I agree with NonMormon. I am active LDS, and I enjoy Ash's articles, and I...
I kept saying don't resign Milsap, especially after Portland offered that...
BYU is the slowest team that has ever been in the top 25. Utah will put up a...
i think u have the cowboys ranked too low! at least an A- LOL nice work!
Advertisements
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.