Deseret News | DNA claims rebutted on Book of Mormon

Reader comments
DNA claims rebutted on Book of Mormon

448 comments | Read story

Moby Joe | 11:42 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

In response to the person who posted as "Science has all the answers?":

You say you support studying and learning to answer the questions we face, and leaving the rest up to faith. Fine. Is the DNA/Book of Mormon question one of those issues?

I'm not saying that science has all answers, but on the question of whether Native Americans were descended from Lehi and his fellow Book of Mormon characters, science has a clear answer: no. There's no need for faith to answer that question; the question has been answered.

And yes, your world view probably would change, possibly every month, if you relied on science to answer your questions. That's the beauty of it. Science changes because human understanding grows. No one claims a scientific theory is beyond question, and, ideally, as one theory falls, a better one takes its place, bringing us closer to the truth.

If your ultimate goal is to understand truth, then your understanding and beliefs should change and improve as you learn more.

True, some questions are unanswered, but be sure you don't reject answers when they come and when they make sense.

Hawk | 11:50 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

It would seem that if you are disposed to non-belief or belief, DNA is your friend. Either way genetics is not as simple as the two sides would have you think.

New Okie | 11:51 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Didn't the Jaredites come from parts of the M.E. and Asia following the changing of languages and destruction of the Tower of Babel? In any case, they weren't Israelites. Whose to say, no matter how learned some former bishop may be, that more of the Jaredite DNA didn't survive through inter-marrying and various degrees of population destruction over the course of 2,600 years? The records are so detailed from that time period, and we're all so smart, we know exactly what happened. Right.

Comments continue below

troublesabrewin | 11:50 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

The most troubling thing about this article to me is the treatment of Southerton and Murphy at the hands of the church. If they don't tote the party line 100 percent on all things then they are kicked out? What is the good of that? Most members of the church are inactive, yet they still remain on the records of the church. Fine. Why single out these two? Don't we want ALL to come unto Christ and be baptized in His name? Let God be the judge of who is in and who is out at the last day!

Anonymous | 11:52 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

A most timely and provocative subject, DNA and the lineage of cultures outlined in the Book of Mormon. But it was and is a giant mis-step, by either an editor, the writer or folk at the conference, to allow this "speaker and protagonist" to carry the banner for the LDS scientific crowd. Very disquieting to have the News offer such a piece and then juxtapose that a rank amateur make pronoucements best left to geneticists and trained scientists. The debate and discussion needs to occur, but the "public participants" should be those schooled not only in the culture of their "calling" but in serious academic endeavor. As is, the piece is largely "opinion" and to the malcontents, it just evidence the Mormons don't wish to shoot straight or play fair - when discussing the nuance of Book of Mormon lineages. Apparently there is plenty of mystery that remains to be explored; and with some the Book of Mormon story is re-branded and re-packaged nearly every decade. Navajo children, once of Lehi's clan; now part of the tribe of Northern Mongolians? A gordian knot of sorts,and who shall unwind the tortuous mystery? "Any speaker" at a public forum in SLC?

TYLER | 11:56 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

My comment is to the person who claims the Book of Mormon to be fiction; How does a 23 year old farmer with an elementary education write a 500 page book that can so perfectly refer to the past and present, that fits so perfectly with the Holy Bible, that he devoted his life to, Putting his money, time, labor, and pain into the words of this book you call fiction. He willingly went into a mob prison where he prophetically claimed he would not be coming out of alive. He died for this so called fictional book. You must not know much about this Book of God if you truly believe its words to be fictional.

Moby Joe | 12:00 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

To "Why Argue About it?":

You say you "find it interesting that those who oppose are those who have not read the book and taken the promise of Moroni, or are those who have had action taken against them by the church and lost their testimony."

You've described some, but not nearly all, of those who disagree with the church's claims about the Book of Mormon. I have read the book. I have prayed sincerely, fervently, desperately about it. If God gave me any answer, it was to trust what makes sense. The Book of Mormon doesn't.

Also, I've never had action taken against me by the church. No one offended me, causing me to stop believing. There are hundreds of thousands of people who are just the same.

anon. | 12:09 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Read 4 Nephi. the definition of "Lamanite" was changed to denote those who rebelled against the believers around AD 190 or so. Under that definition, anyone not of the Nephite faith (or refusing it later) would have been classified as "Lamanite"--including American Indians.

The problem, not with good science, but with people's twisting of good science, is that we quickly become overly confident of ourselves and our "results". Elder Scott (a nuclear engineer, btw) had it right in his last conference talk when he explained that we can never reach "absolute truth" using the scientific method.

Scientific claims cannot knock down religious tenets anymore than religious dogmas will destroy scientific inquiry; the two are after completely different questions: Science searches out the "how", the mechanisms nature, but does a poor job of explaining "why", the underlying purpose. With religion, answers to the purpose of everything are sought, but the details are less important. I have no qualms with the idea that "And God said, Let there be light" leaves out some of the details of creation. Such mechanistic questions are not germane to the point that God brought forth the earth, however it was done.

DLN | 12:12 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

To begin, I am an active member of the LDS church and I don't understand why Mormons continue to get upset about these types of articles. Somehow, we have gotten the idea that we are being singled out in some way. All you have to do is turn on the history channell and there is at least a program a day where "experts" of various forms debate the bible, it's teachings, what happened vs. what didn't happen. A lot of it is very interesting and I ponder what was discussed and other times I dismiss it. I guess the point I am making is that there are people out there trying to prove/disprove the Bible and its various teachings. They have discussed it until they are blue in the face and have not come up with any definite conclusions. The Book of Mormon is not exempt from these discussions either. We all need to look at these type of articles and take them for what they are. Opinions with a bit of science rhetoric. Stop getting so worked up about everything.

Beliver | 12:19 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

I love it Attack the BOM and everyone and their dog comes out of the woodwork. The philosophy seems to be "I have already made up my mind, don't confuse me with the facts." Some things you just have to take on faith. Either you have faith or you don't. If people are leaving the Mormon church based on this issue, they don't belong in the Church. Happy Trails.

Active Doubter | 12:26 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

I don't buy it. It's time for the Church to admit that the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction. Go to mormon.org and watch Elder Ballard's response to the question, "Is there scientific proof authenticating the Book of Mormon." His reply is indirect. He seems to be implying that the word of God does not have to be based on actual fact or history. I believe the Church is headed toward that premise.

My sincere and direct statement to the leaders of the Church: This duplicity is causing major strife in my relationships. OWN UP to the truth! You will ultimately be responsible for much sorrow because of your actions.

Moby Joe 2 | 12:39 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Like Moby Joe, I have read the Book of Mormon, prayed about it fervently...and was never filled with the Holy Spirit to change my faith journey. Why is it that people who honestly have read it...and NOT been moved by it..why is it that we are told we just were not being spiritual enough??? That we really did not try???

nate | 12:41 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

i am native american. if i am not jewish then why am i circumcised?

anonymous | 12:44 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

A few years ago, I took the Moroni challenge. My heart was achingly open. I read the entire Book of Mormon and prayed about it. Without knowing anything about DNA evidence, I knew that what I had just read was 19th century literature, written by a some rough genius. Not very faith-promoting, I know, but really, there are some things you can intuit with an open mind. Who really doesn't have an open mind here in this debate?

lawyer and philosopher | 12:47 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Does not Isaiah speak of a marvelous work and a wonder, at the end of verse 29,and he states that the coming forth, presumably of the Book of Mormon, will be to confound the wise and the learned? why then based one's belief principally on the ever changing development of human understanding? Did not "science" believe at one point the earth was flat? DNA debates problably neither prove or disprove a pointunless one has the control sample to compare it with, in this case Seventh Century Lehite. Is not the obscurity of the origins of the Book of Mormon part of the process of the|"depths of humility" required to approach in sincere prayer the putative author of the Book, namely God?

Huxelby | 12:48 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

I think the reason why this ï¿½non-issueï¿½ is so important is that when a layman reads the Book of Mormon in the context of the LDS religion, it is clear to him that the preponderance of modern Lamanite ancestry is supposed to funnel through the Book of Mormon Lamanites, whose ancestry funnels through Lehi, Ishamael, Sam, the Mulekites, and the other characters who immigrated from Israel to the New World.

Most people just arenï¿½t smart enough to read the Book of Mormon and perceive that the genetics of the Nephites and Lamanites could have been totally drowned out millions of Asians who were already here.

dh | 12:55 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Just read the book with an open mind and then ask yourself if an ignorant, 19th century farm boy could have "fabricated" this writing. Perhaps JK Rowlings great great grandmother wrote the book? OF course if Rowlings ancestor wrote the book then Nephi would probably be gay! People who critisize the book have never read it - that is my experience. They have a bone to pick with the Church and so they start drumbing up a hodge-podge of unfounded so-called scientific mumbo jumbo that some ex-communicated member is hosting. Same ole same ole. Just READ THE BOOK. The Book of Mormon stands on it's own and doesn't need any scientific proof any more than the resurrection of Christ does.

So What? | 12:56 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Science also can not support the idea that Jesus Christ was resurrected. There is no evidence for this as according to science it would be impossible. So I guess that all Bible believers out there and those that profess Christianity are wrong because the Bible is wrong also.
There will always be unanswered and unproven theories regarding religion. Why do you non-mormons feel that you have to spend so much time and effort to convince us how wrong we are? Are we doing something to hurt you by our beliefs? With all the good that the Mormon church does in the world to help others, etc. why do you feel you need to stop it? Why take it all so personally? Christ taught that by their fruits ye shall know them - whose fruits are sweeter here - those of the church and its leaders and majority of members or those who continue to kick against the pricks and accuse Mormons of believing in a false book.
It doesn't matter to me the lack of evidence to support the resurrection and Bible either - I believe in Christ's resurrection as fully as I do the BOM.

Chicago Member | 1:01 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

I believe in the Book of Mormon. Shouldn't that be the most important factor to me? I am secure in my faith and am not swayed by what others say to support or refute it.
If someone else doesn't believe it, fine. If someone else does believe it, that's fine, too.
I never understand why believers and non-believers care so much about what others think.

So What (cont.) | 1:01 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Those of you who don't believe due to these scientific facts obviously can not believe in a God, or in Jesus Christ, and apparently refer to Bible stories as only being metaphorical. If you take science as the ends all to all debate - then obviously you are all very atheistic.
I will hold to my beliefs regardless of science as it gives me something more important to hold to than a belief in nothing more than the Big Bang theory and evolution. Just leave us alone and let us worship how, what, or where we may - the same as we do for you.

Johnny Rotten | 1:03 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

I am an active, temple recommend and calling holding, tithe paying, member of the Church who doesn't believe in the historicity of the BOM.

If you spend anytime studying DNA, BOM anachronisms, anthropology, textual critism, and archeology you will come to the same conclusion. If you visit with trained professionals even at BYU they will confirm that the BOM has hundreds of problems. It is not that evidence for the truthfulness of the BOM does not exist; while that is true, it is that there is a vast body of evidence that continues to mount against the BOM.

All the Asian DNA predates 8,000 B.C.

That means it predates the Jaradites, the Lehites, Noah and the flood and Adam and Eve. Furthermore we (the Church) are forced redefine the BOM to fit modern understandings of Mesoamerica and its population. The Prophets continue to teach that all these peoples and events are literal.

Even Dr. Whiting has admitted that our understanding of the BOM and its lands must be redefined. I say yes, redefined as not historical, rather they were created in the mind of Joseph Smith.

DNA//Genetic Studies Still Young | 1:07 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

I believe that DNA and Genetic technologies are still in their infancy. Science is always discovering new facts--the future holds an infinate number of new facts. The Spirit of Holy Ghost does not lie.

Ron Paul | 1:06 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Can DNA evidence disprove the divinity of the Book of Mormon? Of course not. But certainly several claims and popular LDS beliefs need to be re-examined. Might it be time to quit identifying anyone of American-Indian or Polynesian descent as Lamanite? Mormons and Americans must begin to call into question their notions of race. If we want to put DNA studies to positive use we will realize that we are all "mutts." DNA shows that we are all pretty much the same. Our group identities are historical and cultural constructs used to reinforce power relationships. DNA can't disprove the Book of Mormon, but hopefully it can challenge notions of being "God's elect" and racist attitudes.

Jerry | 1:09 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Why wouldn't the Nephites have Asian genetic markers?
Nephi is a direct decedent of Adam and Eve.
Adam and Eve were born in Missouri, some 6,000 years after Asians migrated to and populated the Americas.
Hence all of Adam and Eve's decendents were Asian.

Who needs Brant Gardner?

Johnny Rotten | 1:14 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Yesï¿½I've read the BOM my entire life; I read it 8 times on my mission alone. I also taught seminary for three years. I never received an answer to my prayers, however I always felt warm and comfortable in Church. What is funny to me is that all my very good Evangelical friends have received similar "feelings of the spirit" when they prayed to know if what they believed is true.

Furthermore, I have felt those same wonderful feelings while bonding with my wife, watching TV, enjoying good and not so good music, competing in and watching my children compete in sporting events, reading a good fiction novel, watching Star Wars, and playing war games in the US Army.

I no longer feel comfortable using feelings as a means to test truth claims. I believe God gave me a brain and expects me to use it.

Best,

Johnny Rotten

Anonymous | 1:20 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Why are we relying in the arm of flesh to dictate what we believe? The BOM is historical no matter what DNA may state. We do realize that the knowledge of DNA hasn't been around all that long and when it comes to science anything "new" is rarely right and is filled with flaws.

A Scientist | 1:22 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

I don't know why many of you seem to believe the notion that everything that is stamped with the word science on it is actually legitimate science. Anybody scientist that is completely familiar with the Book of Mormon and has actually read the works of Murphy and Southerton and honestly evaluated their claims without bias realize that THEIR CONCLUSIONS ARE TOTAL GARBAGE. Yes, I believe science, and I would never dismiss the claims of good science done well, but this is not good science. It takes claims the Book of Mormon never made, and then tries to disprove it using DNA from modern people without a legitimate control for comparison. The Book of Mormon makes no claims as to the genetic profiles of the peoples in it. Lehi, Mulek, and Ishmael were likely all of different genetic backgrounds, and even if you had their DNA to compare to, you might never prove that any native Americans were their descendants. My daughters are 1/8 Cherokee. But you could never prove that they were a descendant of their maternal great grandfather using Mitochondrial DNA or Y chromosome markers, because these genetic markers are not passed on in that way.

Joseph Smith | 1:31 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Didn't Joseph Smith also say that the earth was 6000 years old? Please someone correct me if I am wrong.

Benjamin Reed | 1:41 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

If anyone bothered to watch the 60 Minutes (CBS) broadcast on tracing genealogy via DNA sampling, they would know that frankly it is an inexact science. The segment is worth watching and seems to trash the assertions from Simon Southerton. Also, think about this: Iraq/Turkey/Iran, etc. are technically located in SOUTHERN ASIA. WIth migration from those areas to other zones deeper in "traditional" Asia, this explains a great possibility of complicating a "pure" find. Also, as I recall, the most accurate comes from the X chromosome, not the Y. At any rate, there are a lot of "scientific mysterys" the surround the Bible, yet few question its veracity. Hence, we should take the Book of Mormon more as a spiritual not literal historical document. Anyone who has studied the monographs of Ce Acatel Tepolitzlan Quetzalcoatl and the Popol Vuh, see too many similarities to render the Book of Mormon invalid. It is impossible for Joseph Smith to have conjured up so many similarities over 150 years ago without knowing of them.

Johnny Rotten | 1:43 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

B.H. Roberts (a believer) wrote in the 1920's that the BOM had serious problems regarding historicity (See Studies of the Book of Mormon). Since that time the evidence against the BOM and its truth claims has continued to grow.

It is so overwhelming that apologists are forced to redefine important facts about which the descendants of the Lehites are, where they lived, were there ï¿½othersï¿½ and rewrite other so called unchanged truths. Apologists even ignore D&C section 32 pronouncement from the lord to serve a mission to the Lamanites in the mid-western USA.

Science only confirms the claims made by anti-Mormons that the BOM is not historical.

Best,

Johnny Rotten

Johnny Rotten | 1:44 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

The problem with modern apologetics is that it is not intellectually honest. The apologists omit important facts, facts that put evidence in its proper context.

For Instance they give hope to sincere members of the Church by stating that the Jaradites could be Asian, without explaining that the DNA evidence conclusively states that all migrations predate the end of the last ice age. DNA markers place the date prior to Adam and Eve.

Furthermore they omit the information about DNA markers, information that can determine whether migrants come from western or eastern Asia. The markers prove the ancestors of the native-Americans almost exclusively come from Mongolia.

They also fail to mention that the horses found in America died out over 8,000 years ago.

It is the apologist that misleads and misuses evidence to cloud the truth about BOM studies.

Best,

Johnny Rotten

Bert | 1:44 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

I prayed... God told me it's not true. End of debate for me.

To "A Scientist" | 1:50 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Ok, let's remove the DNA claims and see what we are left with. Look at many of the above posts and we are basically left with "feelings". Let's look at some of the other posts regarding "feelings". This is what we are basically left with. Some will use their feelings to make the world a better place...I hope so because I feel that's all we will have in regards to the BOM. Stop arguing and use the book to make your life better. Also, do not critisize those that know that "feelings" do not make truth. They can make the world a better place too.

Elijah Abel | 1:54 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

To "A Scientist"

"The Book of Mormon makes no claims as to the genetic profiles of the peoples in it." ?!?!?!

Are you serious?

Read the introduction. It still says that "the Lamanites were the principal ancestors of the American Indians."

I take that at face value, to mean what I was taught my entire life as a Mormon, that Native American and Lamanite are interchangeable. Every LDS Prophet since Joseph Smith up until Gordon B. Hinkley has used the term "Lamanite" to refer to Native Americans. It is still used to describe Native Americans. My children are Native American and I find the application of the term "Lamanite" to my children increadibly offensive, since the Book of Mormon makes Lamanites out to be cursed with a skin of darkness.

It is, what Thomas Murphy said, a 19th Century racist myth that dark skinned people got dark because God cursed them with dark skin, developed as a way to legitimized dehumanizing, exploiting and enslaving dark skinned people. It is the same with the curse of cain doctrine, which still stands and will be taught as long as LDS leaders refuse to set the record straight by repudiating it.

Shame.

Challenge | 1:56 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

If the BOM is not what it claims to be, where did it come from? I challenge anyone to write a single chapter of comparable content.

The grassy knoll? Roswell | 2:16 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Science, depends on who looking into the microscope and WHY? Been to Egypt 23 times and they can not determine the DNA of who's who and they KNOW who the body belongs to. This dog and pony show is just that.

Blueberry | 2:17 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Bert: didn't read it did you? Even though He can, God doesn't often reward intellectual laziness with inspiration and knowledge.

Johnny Rotten | 2:20 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

A Scientist...

I disagree with you; we do know many things;

First it is inconsistent with Hebrew law to marry outside the Chosen people. And if you read Southertonï¿½s book he explains who the control group is and how we identify ancient Hebrew DNA. That is the control group.

Second, we know that all the DNA migrations to the new world predates book of Mormon peoples and Adam and Eve. The date to 8,000 B.C. or earlier.

Third, we do know that the sample size is more than large enough and has a very small margin of error.

Forth, the claims Southerton and Murphy refute, hemispheric and Meso-American models, in there books and articles were made by Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants section 32 or (God).

cont...

Johnny Rotten | 2:20 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Fifth, there is NO, absolutely NO, mention of any ï¿½othersï¿½ in the BOM text. The text is silent about ï¿½othersï¿½ and the current Prophet along with every Prophet since Joseph Smith have identified ALL native American, North and South America as descendents of the Lamanites. The Church defined the grounds of the debate.

Sixth, it is incomprehensible how a book a specific as the BOM can mention everything about war, metallurgy, farming, coinage and yet no mention of interaction with ï¿½othersï¿½. When ancient culture and civilizations encountered each other usually war resulted. Not in the BOM, it was so uneventful that no mention was made in the entire text. That is ridiculous.

Seventh, DNA evidence refutes every population size with the exception of a small colony which is easily swamped by ï¿½othersï¿½ DNA.

Eighth, the Church continues to print in its correlated material, which is described as "inspired" by the members of the Church, a hemispheric model. So maybe you should send a memo to the "inspired" brethren that they are incorrectly describing who the Lamanites are and were they lived.

Best,

Johnnny Rotten

Anonymous | 2:25 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

I suspect Joe Smith wrote the Book of Mormon in concert with Oliver Cowdry and Sydney Rigdon, lifting the main story from Spalding's "View of the Hebrews" as well as inserting extended passages from the bible.

Erico | 2:27 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

All of you who are basing the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon on a "spiritual feeling" need to question your assumptions regarding that spiritual feeling. Just because you feel it, doesn't make it true. Based on the evidence, it's all in your head. Yes, it is wonderful and life-changing, but it doesn't mean it's true.

wondering | 2:28 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

As a member of the LDS church, I think we should all be very respectful of science. I think is unfortunate when church members downplaying science. Of course science changes, but that is usually the nature of truth-seeking. Scientists are trained to conform their views to be consistent with the data, which I think is admirable.

I wonder what is the best way for a person who wants to be a believing, science-loving, Mormon to handle difficult facts? The most comfortable response for me is to suspend judgement until we have further information. But there isn't a lot of room in the church for doubt or uncertainly. If more unpleasant facts are to come out in the future, maybe we will have to become more accepting of doubt and uncertainty?

Our leaders seem to be setting the example of not being interested in intellectual or scientific topics, and most church members seem to be following that example. But how many generations will that last?

Then there is the pleasant chance that at some future time science and history will become more "friendly" to our cause.

engineer | 2:29 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

As used in this article, the term "LDS scientist" is an oxymoron.

Widow's son | 2:52 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Well, engineer, perhaps you're finally right and nobody has anything to answer you with just now.

Oh, but wait! I think I see it coming to me now.

(Please be so kind as to read my next message).

Steve | 2:52 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Funny, don't you think, that not only did both Southerton and Murphy admit in their essay in the book "American Apocrypha" (pg. 53) that their very DNA testing methods did not rule out a small scale migration of people into an already populated area (see John Sorenson's essay on the issue of "others" in the Book of Mormon) but that a report came in just three days ago that refutes those very same methods that both Southerton and Murphy used in their "rebuttal" of the Book of Mormon. I cannot post the link here, but I can direct people interested to go to Jeff Lindsay's blog "Mormanity" and then to click on the link given under his post "DNA and the Book of Mormon Update: Science Warns of Limitations on DNA Testing".

For those who are triumphantly declaring that truth and science have "proven" the Book of Mormon false, might I suggest that they stick by their own standard and look at all of the evidence and facts before they jump to conclusions. In other words, do for yourself what you keep insisting the Mormons should do.

p.s Pay attention to the 2nd to last paragraph in the report.

To Mr. Cuch | 2:53 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

you are right. Utah was the last state to allow NDNs the right to vote-1954-, we might all be speaking Japanese if one of the Lamanite tribes hadn't been allowed to participate in the military. One has no farther to look than at a particular SE UThigh school with 50% percent natives yet the sports teams speak volumns of the racism that exists as a microcosim of that community. Within the last 5 years the county court had to be reminded to allow natives to be chosen from the jury pool, the town baseball field was one of only two to be awarded nationally using ndn numbers and proposals to get that huge grant. In county with 55%, being native, the descripancies ring loud and clear in who is in the detention centers and on the law enforcement.From the state colleges to the hospital being built NDN money and numbers play a significant role in rewarding grants. Issues that selma,alabama settled years ago still linger yet when you bring up the elephant in the room ..the answer is whipdeedo! or Kill the messenger. Heck they can keep the book just show us where the money is for real!

Daniel | 2:56 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

You're gonna believe a London architect about the language of ancient Crete? Over the greatest scholars of ancient languages? Of course not. So Michael Ventris's decipherment of Minoan Linear B can be dismissed without a hearing.

And, obviously, you're not gonna believe a clerk in the Swiss patent office over the great Newton and the leading professors of physics in the greatest universities. So that silly Einstein can safely be ignored. What a loon. If we was any good, he'd have a university appointment in physics.

Credentials are everything. Evidence and argument count for NOTHING.

Anonymous | 2:57 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

What it always comes down to is this:
Either Joseph Smith was telling the truth or was a liar.

Have mercy on the widow's son!!! | 3:06 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Dear engineer,

If you had been the insightful engineer who had the commission to build the fortifications that Captain Moroni required to defend the people of his day but you knew that they would ultimately fail and would possibly remain to be judged by a people who you knew would far surpass any knowledge that you currently had wouldn't you try to secure the promise of your biographers to skew the books just a little?

I stand ready to defend Joseph's actions, to testify of him as The Prophet of this last dispensation and take The Book of Mormon seriously enough to allow its historicity to play out in the sealed portion(s) thereof.

Who can say whether either the descendants of Hagoth or perhaps even Moroni himself were not allowed to leave a record of being inspired to unite in bringing this record to its most recently recorded resting places from some other, yet undisclosed but real land that remains to be revealed for the very purpose that Our Father knew would happen so that our very faith might be tried as was prophesied?

Is this all too convenient? Please keep Charles Anthon and the book of Lehi in mind!

Can I get a comment printed? | 3:11 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

I'm not sure why I get censored. My comments are not that negative. Basically the computer geek let us know that there are possible explanations why the DNA evidence does not show middle eastern origins (Hebrew) for the natives of North and South America. I think everyone is too believing in the "science" of DNA matching. It can produce iron clad relationships, or, it can produce....nothing conclusive (the case here). Let's face it, thousands of years have gone by since the time of the BOM stories. Peoples have come and gone. We just don't KNOW anything for sure. What we can look at is the character of the person who translated the BOM. Now there is where we can begin a real debate....

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.