Reader comments
DNA claims rebutted on Book of Mormon

448 comments | Read story

CC | 9:47 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

I guess it is who you want to look to for evidence, God or man. I prefer to place my hope in something that created everything scientists have been trying to figure out since the beginning of time. Has science, as defined by man, ever been able to define basic principles like faith, hope, and charity and how trying to adhere to them has the ability to increase mans capacity to love and be a better human being. Science is mans interpretation and definition of Godly things. I would imagine that God has his own perspective on gravity, the law of relativity, and DNA. Then again, maybe all of this that we experience as humans just happens and man is trying to define it or is it possible that we are just figuring out the same blueprints that were used to design and build it all in the first place.

Jakes mistake | 9:56 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Take the Book of Abraham to a Egyptology's. Take the quotes from the brass plates inside the BOM to a scholar of the Hebrew bible.
-Jake-- Read Book of Moses, part of the Pearl of Great Price--.. God said: "Worlds without number have I created", --
Now go to Hubble Space pictures and look Up Worlds without number... Trillions of Stars, Billions of Earths.. Galaxy's without number, as of now.. Jake..
Now, Jake, You prove to me there is not a God, and he didn't approve/write the BOM or the Pearl of Great Price.. Sheeeesh..

ME | 9:57 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

It is true. Take the test at the end of the book. :)

Comments continue below

Hill Cumorah | 9:58 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

There was a comment that someone should dig up the Hill Cumorah? That would certainly not be worth the time. Joseph Smith claimed that the angel Moroni took back the plates. That does not mean the plates were taken back to the hill, it just means Moroni took them. Again, as stated in other posts, the value of the Book of Mormon is not in proving it. The value is in reading it and allowing it to change your life for good, which it has mine.

Science has all the answers? | 9:58 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

I am a big believer that we should do our best to study and try to come up with answers to the questions that we face. However, if I relied on science to answer all of the questions concerning my faith then those answers would change each month with the publishing of the newest scientific theories.

I am OK with not having all of the answers right now and still living what I believe to be true. At the same time I am open to discussion on any topic dealing with my faith and the current view of science that either supports or opposes that view.

sfcretdennis | 9:59 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Hereï¿½s what we have, we have thouï¿½s who believe and those who donï¿½t and when you get right down to it it donï¿½t matter what you bring to the table you will have those who will believe and those who wonï¿½t. It donï¿½t matter what the evidence states, what one needs to do is what it says in first James, 5 and 6, apply this and ask God for answers and remember donï¿½t rely on your own understanding but that of God. Science canï¿½t prove the Book of Mormon nor can it prove the Bible, we rely on God to help us understand. Human kid is trying to understand the Science of God and we could never hope to fully understand the Science of God.

lokonomo | 10:00 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

DNA research isn't the nail in the coffin of the BOM; that's already clear from archaeology, language studies, and the like . . . It's the headstone on the grave. However, to some Mormons, that shouldn't matter. Faith never had anything to do with reality, look at what the Catholic church once taught about the shape of the Earth.

lokonomo | 10:01 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

I believe it is offensive to blame members of the church for believing that the American continent was uninhabited before the Lehites or Jaredites or that the inhabitants of the American continent decended from Lehi. The book itself says that, as well as Moroni (or Nephi), God, and every supposed prophet since Joseph Smith (We also bare testimony that the "Indians" (so called) of North and South America are a remnant of the tribes of Israel; as is now made manifest by the discovery and revelation of their ancient oracles and records.
PROCLAMATION OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST, OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS . . . .April 6, 1845). The Limited Geography Theory (?) is a new idea that came about only to explain away the lack of evidence supporting BOM claims and the overwhelming evidence showing the American Indians were decended from ancestors in Northeast Asia.

lvman | 10:02 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

The problems with trying to use DNA to trace ancestory was recently addressed by a story in 60 minutes where decendants of slaves are trying to trace their roots back to africa. Watch this program before you start making comments about this article.

Pray about it | 10:03 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Moroni 10:3-5

MJ | 10:03 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

The world is flat. No, wait, I believe it is round. No, wait, it is some geometric form that is likely impossible to exactly and correctly detail without fault. That I don't understand it to perfection intellectually doesn't interfer with my belief that it exists and is real. It is beautiful and with all of its mystery and complexity affords me life and hope. So it is with the story of the Book of Mormon. Skeptics that have read it attempt to disprove it intellectually. Can they disprove the beauty and hope found in its pages? A marvelous thing happens when you read the story with an open heart ready to experience something beyond logic. It answers questions logic does not. I am thankful for our free land that allows us all to have our own veiws and beliefs. It is alright to view things differently and to disagree but first and foremost we should always respect each other. Who knows, DNA might even establish that we are connected.

Mo-town | 10:03 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Yeah Stephen, Mormons are the cause of all the worlds problems, aren't they. Maybe we all should just submissevely sit back while folks who mask themselves as experts devote their entire lives trying to debunk a spiritual work

Truth is, it was not intended for spiritual things to be scientifically proven, and they never will be. You can not scientifically prove that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, you cannot scientifically prove that anything in the bible really happened, and you won't ever prove the Book of Mormon either

For those of you who don't believe it, relax and go your own way. Funny though, they can't do that.

I agree | 10:05 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

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.

Scientist | 10:06 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

I am a scientist. I work with DNA pretty much every day. Admittedly, I don't do the type of genetic studies referenced in the article. It comes down to faith. On the one hand we have the Book of Mormon which some believe is not historical because of current scientific evidence. They would also have us believe that this major religious writing was fabricated by a 20 something young man with a third grade education. On the other hand we have those who believe that the Book of Mormon is what it says it is; written from gold plates and testifying of Jesus Christ. This genetic evidence against the Book of Mormon is, like previous arguments, rather tenuous when compared to the evidence for it.
I have been in science long enough to know that what we think we understand now will look elementary, perhaps even misguided, in a few years. We go with the best knowledge we have, but sometimes we have to go on faith. I wasn't there when Lehi came to America; I didn't see anyone come from Asia, and none of us can know for certain. But, I believe God knows.

ROADY | 10:06 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

we beleive things will be revealed when the time is ready. DUH!

Belief in Bible | 10:07 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

So let me get this straight. The BOM contains stories from the Bible that most every rational person can see were meant to be metaphorical (the Flood, Adam & Eve, Tower of Babel) yet the BOM is supposed to be taken literally?

daveescaped | 10:09 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Falcon - Your question is a red herring. I might as well ask "Are there any non-Christians who accept the New Testament?". Any non-Muslims who accept the Koran? etc. While one might claim these documents have some generally accepted historical facts, they also occur in a region of known historicity (unlike the Americas). Where are the historical documents we could compare the BoM history to? There are none. So to claim it is or is not historically correct is only subjective opinion or in the case of the LDS a matter of faith. Also, if we validated the Koran historically would you become a Muslim?

On the DNA issue, I agree that a software programmer isn't the first person I would trust. But that in and of itself doens't mean he is wrong.

An easier evidence he could have offered is the fact that NO expatriate Hebrew group (in Russia, America, etc.) can be be proven to be of Hebrew extraction via DNA. Not with any certainty. And rather than a computer geek this is the opinion of a Harvard science professor.

Vladimir | 10:11 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Both science and religion are human responses to the unknown. Each has its strengths and its deficiencies. The trick is to keep an open mind and heart and not rush to judgment in any direction, particularly as it relates to others' conclusions. Everyone should take a deep breath, analyze the facts as a scientist, feel the spiritual as a religionist, and only then reach some personal conclusions -- which may be different for me than for you. Cumbaya.

Scholars? Apologetics? | 10:17 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

If you base your faith on what Cleon Skousen and others like him have to say, or even on modern apologetics, these studies might conceivably blow your mind. I prefer to go to the scriptures for my information about the scriptures. Secondarily, I will read things like William Prescott's books. Nothing I have read in actual pre-Mormon-bashing ancient American history contradicts the Book of Mormon. Nothing in the Book of Mormon contradicts the idea that it gives the history of geographically specific tribes. It even tells right in the scriptures about the ties between Oriental lands and the people in the Book of Mormon. Hint: look up "Sinim."

MoJules | 10:25 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

I will put my trust in the perfect scientist, who knows more than every scientist that has existed, even all those combined. There is a place in the Book of Mormon that talks about how the Jews wanted more complicated words, so the Lord gave that to them. I will never let science waiver my faith, because I do not put my trust in the arm of flesh. So no matter how convincing things are, I put my trust in an all knowing God and that what can't be explained to me today will one day be understood.

Anonymous | 10:27 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

I am a devout LDS member and believe the BOM is true. However, this article probably should not have been published by Deseret News.

The expert was an amatuer and just had opinions. They may have been good opinions to have, but, this does not advance the understanding of the BoM and Ancient America in any way. It just sounds like an interesting fireside.

Moessers | 10:29 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

To Pray About It:

I did. And I was told beyond a shadow of doubt, it's not true.

Hill Cumorah | 10:35 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

There was also supposed to have been a great battle there. Surely there would be weapons and such. I don't believe all the stories in the Bible, but there is an actual place on the map, artifacts and many other things showing that at least some of peoples existed.
With the Book of Mormon there is speculation, no confirmed artifacts, the DNA thing and plenty of fallacys to be explained.
I like the Book of Mormon and believe it was written as a work of fiction to accompany the Bible. The problem is it was potrayed as literal truth.

CB | 10:36 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

I am fascinated by the ignorance on both sides of this issue--those who think their non-belief has been vindicated and those who think that the 'evidence' is wrong. Both are looking in the wrong place. Ancient records are plentiful since the earlier 50s and not only validate the idea of ancient records, but validate the material found in the ancient records, including the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is a singularity because its origins are always questioned, and yet it exists. The best proof is within its pages. You determine the validity of ancient records by what they say. The race issue in the Book of Mormon is very complicated and is not like taught in primary, a record of the American Indians. That is ignorance on the part of most LDS.

look no further | 10:38 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Find 2 nice looking young men or young women that seem to have a kick in their step and sparkle in their eye wearing black and white badges and they will be happy to discuss this matter further with you.

Doug the Med Student | 10:43 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

What a fun debate!! This has been one of the cleanest debates on the comments pages of the DesNews and I commend just about everybody here.

My only comment to add as a scientist and (almost) physician is that we should never seek to discount verifiable, well-performed research. So the DNA evidence says something. Let it. In my field, we carefully report experimental findings, and then take EXTRA care when drawing conclusions. It is in the making of a conclusion that we enter the realm of opinion. I am not sure whether any of the three experts quoted in the article should be drawing conclusions based on the evidence they have accumulated to date.

But it sure is a fun debate...

Re: CB | 10:45 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Ignorance on the part of most LDS? That ignorance has been taught to them by their "inspired" leaders. Gives a whole new meaning the inspired, huh?

Anonymous | 10:56 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

According to the D&C, God said the Native Americans were Lamanites.

Of true importance... | 11:00 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Dr. Southerton, search your heart and not your mind. More importantly, trust your heart and not your mind. I am sure you must recall the experiences you have had that only your heart can explain and justify. You are still a divine son of God and my brother. God bless you and all of us.

Jon W. | 11:07 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

I didn't take time to read all preceding comments, but has anyone brought up the point that the "curse" or "mark" on the Lamanites must have been a genetic change, since it was passed from generation to generation? This alone would invalidate any attempt to prove the descent of modern Native Americans from a Hebrew stock through DNA research.

Jayson | 11:08 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

How can Gardner say that Murphy didn't believe in the book before and went off looking for things that would support his view? Isn't Gardner subject to the same criticism of making a conclusion that supports what he's already decided? I suggest that if you make a distinction between "Mormon Scientists" and "Scientists who happen to be Mormon," you'll find the studies of the later group to be much more reliable than those of the former.

Proof in the pages? | 11:10 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

I get good feelings from many books including works of fiction. We can't go simply by our "feelings" to say something is "true". I like many stories that are not "true", but they give me a great feeling.
So let's pretend we don't have this argument about whether the Book of Mormon is "true". Let's say it is. Does that make everything else in the LDS church right? There are many things in the church that has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon. The BOM follows closely along with the Bible and it can help us in lots of ways. But the problems I have had with the church (I'm no longer a member) comes from other belliefs of exclusion, inequality and labels that has nothing to do with that wonderful book.

JB | 11:12 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Based on scientific findings of recent date we can discount the entire Bible and Book of Mormon. For that matter all religion, and previous scientific findings to include Einstiens theories have been relegated to new theories. Ones personal beleifes evolve as time passes as well, if not, one is not learning and growing. Knowledge is limited by current understanding and perspective, we have a very limited understanding and have not touched the beginning of what science is and isn't. In understanding truth, one must keep an eternal perspective, for truth has a past present and future to withstand the test if time. Our limited view can be greatly supplemented when we allow the truths we have, to be guided by a honest and selfless desire, utilizing both our temporal and our spiritual eyes to see into God's perspective

Roland | 11:15 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

If the Lamanites were not Jewish - then how come in Michigan there are indian petroglyps of jewish menorahs?
Just google for images of petroglyph menorah.

metamoracoug | 11:19 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

I like CB's response. The difficulty is resolving a complex question with a simplistic answer. Although I understand that belief in the Book of Mormon is a matter of faith -- as any religious belief is -- being an educated individual, I cannot dismiss scientific, historic, or anthropologic evidence. I have found sufficient evidence to believe it is possible the Book of Mormon peoples, cultures, civilizations existed. One small but significant example is David Freidel and Linda Schele's (both non-LDS scholars) referring to Maya script as reformed Egyptian (see their book A Forest of Kings).

I encourage all to read Michael Whiting's (PhD, BYU professor, curator and director BYU DNA sequencing Center) article: DNA and the Book of Mormon: A Phylogenetic Perspective. It is found on-line at the FARMS website.

Forrest S. Cuch | 11:21 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

I am not so sure testing the validity of the Book of Mormon is so critical as examining what is revealed in Mormon people's treatment of the so called "Lamanities." My observation is that they continue to be either completely ignored and made to be invisible, or they are exposed to the other extreme of being used, exploited, and taken advantage of. This causes me to question whether anyone truely believes the BOM and the LDS Faith.

Todd | 11:25 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

I believe this question about ï¿½Lamaniteï¿½ DNA is answered in the Book of Mormon its self. Read in 2 Ne. 5: 21 how the Lamanite DNA was changed.

Interesting | 11:25 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

I go back to what the Prophet Joseph Smith said. Whether we agree or not.

"...the standard of truth has been erected; No un hallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the great Jehovah shall say the work is done."

re: proof in the pages | 11:28 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

I disagree, I can go off from my feelings to determine truth.

I have witnessed many people over the years forming their opinions based on circumstances associated with actions of members of the church. Use caution to seperate the imperfect actions of man from the perfect doctrines of Christ. Fault will always be easily found in man. Your descriptions of exclusion, inequality and labels appear to me to be weakness of man.

I wonder about anthropologists | 11:29 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

There will always be reasons to believe and reasons to doubt no matter what religion you profess. Call me bias but my experience in a university setting has conditioned me to doubt anthropologists in general. The problem is that anthropology is so general and inter disciplinary that I always find athropologists making fools of themselves. You find applied anthropologists making preposterous economic conclusions and recommendations that anyone with an intro to economics course would refute (I'm talking about basic economic laws). I do a lot of field research and I have been so surprised when people don't want to talk to me if I'm an anthropologist, they don't like how anthropologists have used them as specimens and misrepresented them. The problem is that anthropology brushes up against so many other fields, and anthropologists are rarely as well read as they should be. I don't think this guy is straight up denying the anthropologists results he's just stating something that has been obvious to a lot of people, the conclusive denial of the Book of Mormon based on DNA is questionable. which is why I'm glad most people in the church stick with Paul's advice 1 Cor 2:5.

Duwayne Anderson | 11:30 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

I suggest folks read the book "The Journey of Man" by Spencer Wells. Wells has a Ph.D. from Harvard University (1994), focusing on population genetics and evolution. His book isnï¿½t about Mormonism, but the science is absolutely fatal to the cornerstone of the church. Let me quote a few paragraphs from his book:

"There is one piece of DNA, though, that has recently proven to be an invaluable tool for inferring details about human history -- providing us with far greater resolution than we ever thought possible about the paths followed by our ancestors during their wanderings. It is the male equivalent of mtDNA ... known as the Y-chromosome.... The Y turns out to provide population geneticists with the most useful tool available for studying human diversity." [pages 42-43]

"The genetic evidence is quite clear: all ancient migrants to the Americas seem to have traveled via Siberia." [page 144]

Brant Gardner, a software consultant, simply doesnï¿½t know what heï¿½s talking about when he dismisses DNA evidence thatï¿½s been collected and analyzed by scientists like Spencer Wells.

Duwayne Anderson
Author of ï¿½Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and scienceï¿½

Laughing in SLC | 11:31 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

LOL! Debating the minutiae of the BOM is like debating the minutiae of Lord of the Rings.

Mixing the epistemology of science with the epistemology of religion never results in satisfactory results.

Rick | 11:32 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Many LDS defenders seem to be forgetting something here. Many "Prophets" (same priesthood keys as Joseph Smith) have been telling modern "Native Americans" they are Lamanites. These are the people who have been shown to have no semitic DNA. It's not that complicated...either the modern prophets are wrong, or Joseph was wrong. Either way, it demonstrates the human fabrication of this mythical tale.

Why Argue About it? | 11:33 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

It is apparent that there are alot of opinions out there on the subject. I find it interesting that those who oppose are those who have not read the book and taken the pronmise of Moroni, or are those who have had action taken against them by the church and lost their testimony. It was sted by the prophet Joseph Smith that; "...the standard of truth has been erected; No un hallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the great Jehovah shall say the work is done."
Really it doesn't matter what we think or agrue about. The Lord's purposes will be fulfilled.

Pure love of Christ reaches all. | 11:34 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

From the most weak and humble Hmong of Laos to the richest, and most undeniably "challenged" intellectual elites of any and all socio/politcal or religious persuasions or backgrounds all have ancestors and these will have had promises made to them by a loving heavenly father. We as Latter-Day Saints who seek to honor our commitments to the Lord who has declared that He will have a "covenant people" from among all people and out of every walk of life do well to emulate His bountiful example by promoting those who pioneer correct databases of all DNA samples. Since this cause includes people from every nation, kindred, and tongue we do well patiently learning the complete identity of each and every person we meet including those who presently remain burdened as "illegals". With kind regard and the most sensitive discretion we would be well advised to learn as many languages as we can and be prepared to allow these people to find out all they are prepared to know about their own ancestors. Obviously, we can continue to lead the way by starting out with our own family histories. Thus we can know when God Our Eternal Father keeps those promises.

SL Cabbie | 11:34 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

I have been honored to know Simon Southerton well, and I was also privileged to meet Thomas Murphy a few years ago. Murphy's presentation at the "U" pointed to the decidedly racist tone of the BOM, and he placed it nicely in a context with a statement that "When white men want to act out, they dress up as Indians." Well, my ancestors weren't at Mountain Meadows, but I was still zinged by the knowledge of the actions of some New England forebearers circa 1773.

Mr. Gardner's attacks on Simon Southerton amount to shock jock radio tactics playing to his audience and little else. Simon described literally "going to bed a Mormon and waking up a non-Mormon" after he reviewed the DNA findings, and for Gardner to imply any agenda is ludicrous. Think of the five Native American mtDNA haplogroups as colored marbles, say, red, blue, green, orange, and white. All of Mr. Gardner's rhetoric will not change them to the "blacks, browns, and pinks" of Semitic populations any more than Native American skin tones have changed despite the words of LDS prophets. Add to that the impossibility of Lehi's ocean voyage, and the case against the Bom is closed.

Not Metaphorical | 11:39 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Adam and Eve, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, etc. are not metaphorical, "Belief in Bible", they are real people and real events. There is ongoing debate as to the true location of the "final battle" of the Nephites and Lamanites, whether it was in Central America or North America, as there is a "Hill Cumorah" in each place. I truly don't care where it happened. It is enough for me to know that it did. The teachings in the Book of Mormon were written for us in modern times, kind of like an email sent to us by our ancient prophets to be discovered, or revealed, when the time was right. Read 1 Nephi Chapter 13. There is a lot in there about the settling of the Americas, the difficulties that would face the Jews and the Indians, and more. But beyond the historicity, it is an account of Christ's dealings with these ancient people, and His teachings for our time, to help us and guide us. I love the Book of Mormon.

T-Rex | 11:39 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

The problem arises when someone like President Hinkley when speaking to a gathering of Native Americans refers to their Lamanite ancestors. DNA should back up his references if they are indeed descendants of Lamanites.

Telhri Agardy | 11:40 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Hooray for free speech in this country, no matter how mis-informed. Spectacular technology developments cannot account for customs which date back before the time line given. If the learned scholars had spent time in Harvard's anthropological studies, they would have noted that the underclass or non-rulers were picked up as slave/family to provide continuance in the trades. This goes back over 3000 years. THEY WERE NOT FAMILY in the DNA sense but in every other respect.

To Forrest S. Cuch | 11:42 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

I disagree with Cuch's statement on the treatment of the native Americans. I can go to any of my numerous histories of the American West (not Church publications) and pull out statement after statement of Indians trusting their Mormon neighbors and being very wary of the "gentiles." I have had some very dear friends that belong to the Pima and Navajo tribes. I never used, exploited or took advantage of any of the Indians I know. They are humorous and interesting people. Furthermore, one of my distant relations was known as a particular friend of the Indians and his family keeps that reputation over a century later. Read the (based on fact) accounts by non-Mormon author J.D. Fitzgerald of the Mormons helping the Indians when the gentile government was stealing from them. Very little in history bears out your statement. I'm sorry if you had a poor experience personally, but I don't think that the overall historical record bears you out. From Joseph Smith's first mission to the Lamanites to today, the church has sensed their scriptural responsibility toward the native Americans. They certainly have not acted perfectly, but at least they've tried.

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.