Deseret News | DNA claims rebutted on Book of Mormon

Reader comments
DNA claims rebutted on Book of Mormon

448 comments | Read story

Louise | 3:15 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

DNA is powerful, but the key to DNA is not even close to being solved. Some people have a tendency to dispute scientific evidence if it doesn't fit within their personal beliefs, others incorporate science into their beliefs. I have been to church functions where some members are obnoxious about their political beliefs, assuming every other LDS person is a hard core right winger. Why ignore scientific evidence, why embrace ignorance? There is no scientific proof that the writings in the Bible are accurate. It is healthy to not blindly follow in any religion, it is healthy to seek the truth.

Fredd | 3:17 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

I've always viewed religion as a philosophy on how to live your life. "Christian" principles such as love thy neighbor, etc lead to happiness for most people. If the Mormon philosophy satisfies you then it is positive. If you end up with eternal salvation good on you! I don't think anyone is going to burn in hell by practising christian values by whatever name you call them. FYI, for me the word of wisdom is not a christian value, but power to you if it helps you lead a happty life. I can say this with 100% certainty--Mormon women are hot! maybe the word of wisdom has some eternal good in it. Or it could be DNA.

Steve's Dad | 3:21 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Dear Anonymous,
EXACTLY!!!

Comments continue below

Zelph | 3:33 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

We should be able to locate Zelph's bones and do a complete study on his DNA. That would clear it up.

Faith vs Science | 3:34 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

If we believe science is the ultimate rule then faith has no place. Science speaks nothing of faith and hope. Science is only absolute. If we live by science we live in a cold, cruel world and die. Science tells us we come from like animals over tens of thousands of years. We are animals and there for we should act like animals. More and more this is the attitude of non believers, not just anti Mormons. The more we remove faith and hope from our lives the more we are animals. In fact many will read this and say what more are we then animals. It is our right to believe as we may. It is not our right to force others. The LDS Church make claims and continues Pres. Smiths claims because that is it's right. We can have faith in it or reject it, which is our right. Any one who uses science to prove or disprove it is acting on that right. But in the end Earth is either a mass of rock that will eventually be consumed by the sun or a place for god to raise children. Death is the only absolute.

Dumb Scientists | 3:41 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

This is off the subject, but Scientists are doing anything they can to get a rise out of people. Example: Global Warming is cause by polution from cars, industrial plants, all by humans. Yet, figure how much polutant goes in the air when a volcano explodes. Ive yet to hear how the Scientist figure on caping one of the volcanoes up. In fact its probably the polution from volcanoes that built the Ozone layer in the first place. Our Scientist need to use there knowlege for finding cures for cancers, and aids. Not the DNA to try to turn people away from the church. Its not going to work. The gospel is true. We hope some day you find that out for yourselves.

Anonymous | 3:42 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

If the LDS Church does not put any stock in DNA science, then why is Michael Whiting, PhD, a professor at BYU and curator and director of the BYU DNA sequencing center?

Please Stop. | 3:47 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Apologetics disgust me. Can any of you really step back and look at your own philosophies from an objective point of view? Is it even possible? I want to know that you can prove ANYTHING in your favor if you REALLY want to. So it's no coincidence that a very small percentage of people ever leave the religion they were born into. This includes you, your parents, your grandparents, etc.

Think about it: which looks more legit from a far-away viewpoint? Would the "Jaredite" markers have totally overtaken the Israelite markers of Lehi's group in such a small span of time? No. Don't you think there would be some remnant of archaeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon if it actually happened? Look at the apologists evidences. Are those really legit? Come on people.

Faith vs. Science rebuttal | 4:02 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Science and evidence support faith.

When Christ was resurrected He left us with an empty tomb. The star in the sky appered at His birth. He worked miracles. His apostles did not have to walk by faith, Christ was with them performing rock hard scientific evidence to conclude this Man was not just any man. We do walk by faith today but that faith is grounded and rooted in historical facts, evidence, and science. If historical facts start to discredit your faith maybe your putting your faith in somthing that isn't true. The Bible has much scientific evidence backing it up. Does the Book of Mormon? I was LDS not too long ago but facts and evidence changed my views of Joseph Smith. Why rely on subjective emotional feelings to costantly discredit factual claims against your beliefs? This article is just another attack on a fact that was produced by an unexperieced "professional" trying to support a "warm fuzzy feeling" he had while reading the Book of Mormon. I support my faith with facts.

Anonymous | 4:27 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Why did the First Presidency direct me as a missionary, back 30+ years, to teach Mesoamerican archaeology using "Ancient America Speaks" filmstrip and supporting pamphlets and photos in my missionary copies of the Book of Mormon, only now have removed it all?
How confused would my investigators be if I came back one day later, and told them all that stuff I had taught them the day before, had been removed? We donï¿½t know where the Book of Mormon lands are! Or who the descendants are! Talk about science being unreliable? Inspired leadership?

To quote from an authoritative source:
"The Authenticity of the Book of Mormon constitutes our most important consideration of the work. Not only does the Book of Mormon merit [the most thorough and impartial] consideration, it claims, even demands the same ï¿½The question of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon is therefore ONE IN WHICH THE WORLD IS CONCERNED.
The Latter-day Saints base their belief in the authenticity of the book on the following proofs:
ï¿½ certain external, or extra-scriptural evidences, amongst which are:
5. Corroborative testimony furnished by archeology and ethnology."
James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1981], 247.)

Brutus | 4:28 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Faith and science are ultimately reconcilable because I don't have enough information to conclude that they're not.

Louise | 4:29 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Faith vs Science - I have disagree with you. Science is amazing, and how life perpetuates itself is amazing. I am unsure as to why you feel science is cold and absolute. Science is searching for answers to questions and creating questions. Science is why I am alive today, because without science my mother would have died before I was born, without science, I would have never had children, without science both of my parents would have died from cancer, without science people would not have vaccinations, anti-biotics and numerous other benefits to humankind. Without science, this forum you are posting on would not exist.

Science is not cold and cruel, unless you interpret it to be so.

TYLER | 4:32 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

TO "ELIJAH ABEL"
I don't think you're correct in saying that the Book of Mormon is a way of dehumanizing, exploiting and enslaving dark skinned people. The Church has 12 million plus members, an extremely large percent are "dark skinned". In fact there are more Mormons outside the U.S. than inside. Missionaries are sent all over the world, ie South America, Mexico, Asia, Africa. I will soon be going on a mission to South Africa which is a 73% black mission... We Mormons would not sacrifice 2 years of our lives in hopes of teaching these people our religion and want them to join our church if we were racist. What's more an increasingly large percent of leaders of our church are "dark skinned" we love everyone equally and it's a shame that you've been misled concerning what the Book of Mormon truly means.

thinking | 4:38 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

faith is not apart from reason

Get Honest | 4:41 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

The observation has been made, several times now, that the Lamanites were a people genetically altered from their original state of " a white and delightsome people". Therefore, of course their DNA would not match a modern day hebrew(or an ancient one, either). When the first comment in this regard was made, this debate was over. Why this point was ingnored and arguing continued tells me that interest in DNA is not really the driving force of this discussion

Cognitive Dissonance | 4:44 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

It doesn't matter what the evidence is, there will always be people who believe in the Book of Mormom and the LDS Church. It's a little thing called cognitive dissonance.

Anonymous | 4:51 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

It's hard to believe that there are STILL people who literally believe that an obviously angered god decided to kill all the mothers, their babies, puppies and kittens of the world in "The Great Flood." Come on people ... haven't you ever heard of symbolism and metaphor?

Michael | 4:52 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Can someone tell me why they are comparing Latin American DNA with Jewish. From my reading of the book of mormonn, Lehi was of the house of Manasseh and Ishmael from Ephraim. Both descended from joseph, not Judah. Why should we expect the same miotochondrial DNA if they had different ancestral mothers?

Craig | 5:02 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

IF the Book of Mormon was simply the creation of a 23 year old farm boy then there would be many other 23 year old guys that would be able to write a similar book...where are they? In fact, IF the Book of Mormon were simply the rantings of a 23 year old farm boy it would make for a poor sunday school cirriculum...yet it is studied every fourth year in the LDS sunday school my millions. IF the Book of Mormon were simply a creation from the imagination of a young yankee farm boy it would not have the depth or complexity to be studied at the college level. Most importantly, IF the Book of Mormon were just the work of man it would not have the power to manifest the Holy Ghost to one that seeks to know of its divinity with a pure heart and with real intent. I know the Book of Mormon is true without a doubt because of a spiritual witness that was far more than "warm fuzzies" or an emotional experience, FAR MORE!!!

Scotty | 5:14 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

How does DNA explain the sometimes striking European/Hebrew facial features of many North American Indian tribes, such as the Sioux, Crow, Cherokee, and Iroqua? These Indian tribe members do not look Asian at all, as compared to the Alaskan Eskimos. Many of the Sioux tribes were referred to as Teutonic Sioux by early settlers, because of their Germanic features. Judge for yourself. Look at the early photographs of the various Indian tribes.

FreeAtLast | 5:16 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Earlier this year, I e-mailed the anthropology departments of 15 major universities (starting with Syracuse Univ., which is just 70 miles east of Palmyra, NY) that have researchers who specialize in ancient American cultures to inquire if there is ANY evidence (archeological, genetic, linguistic, etc.) that supports what's described in The Book of Mormon and the foundational claim of the LDS Church regarding it (i.e., that the BoM is a history of ancient peoples in the Americas, and the Lamanites were the principal ancestors of Native Americans). All the departments' responses indicated the same thing: There is no evidence supporting The Book of Mormon.

I also asked if there is ANY evidence of 230,000+ fair-skinned people (Nephites) who were killed in 385 A.D. in the vicinity of the Hill Cumorah near Palmyra, NY (where the LDS Church portrays the slaughter, as described in Mormon chapter 6, theatrically during its pageant). I was informed there is none.

If The Book of Mormon was true, there would be genetic, archeological, linguistic, and other types of evidence supporting it. Unfortunately for Latter-day Saints, there is none. No thinking person can avoid these facts, or the conclusion that the BoM is not historical.

amazed | 5:20 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

All you folks that keep pointing to the 60 minutes special, need to drop it. That show was about do-it-yourself kits. It had nothing to do with DNA migration studies like the Genographic Project being done by National Geographic.

Also the lost tribes argument holds no water either. All the tribes descended from Jacob, and all his wives were sisters. All the DNA would match. Plus Asians existed before Jacob so that's not where they came from.

Hey, nay sayers | 5:22 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

If Joseph Smith "wrote" the BOM by his own intelligence, then why cant you or your dispersion casting minions write one too? I mean you've only had since 1830 to duplicate Joseph Smith's work, whats taking you so long?

What? | 5:26 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

"Faith vs. Science rebuttal" supports his faith with facts, such as "Christ's empty tomb, the star in the sky that appeared at His birth, Christ's miracles, ect." Mr. or Ms. rebuttal, are you really a Mormon believer trying to make a point using irony? What other "facts" support your faith? Do a few archeological remnants validate ALL of the stories of the Bible? What evidence PROVES the truthfulness of Christianity? It too has to be taken on faith.

;-) | 5:27 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

I agree with Scotty | 5:14 p.m.

I mean, what idiot said the sun is the center of the galaxy? Just look and you can SEE that the sun swings around the earth!

And what imbecile said that germs cause disease? It is obvious by looking at their eyes that sick people are possessed by demons!

Scotty, step slowly away from the computer and put the keyboard down...

A Knower not a Believer | 5:27 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

I forced myself to read all the comments coming from those of you who desperately want to believe in a book that you know cannot hold up to scientific scrutiny. I have heard, and at one time believed them all. If you want to believe in the Book of Mormon and its origins, according to Joseph Smith, then go ahead. Just do so with the knowledge that most of the world sees the book for what it is: a marvelous work of fiction.

Peer Review? | 5:28 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

This is not science. Nothing has been peer reviewed; not Murphy's work, not Southerton's work, and certainly not Gardner's work.

Thus this "news" article does not report on science, it reports some crack-pot conculsions of a bunch of people who have no idea what they are talking about.

If the DMN is interested in some of my crack-pot conclusions, just let me know. I'd love a little press.

dissonance | 5:28 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Yep don't confuse me with the facts my mind is made up. If they discovered the golden tablet today and found they were written in ebonics and DNA showed we all came from one of Joseph's 49 wives, we would believe it anyway just as the BOM has been correctly tranlated and edited 200 time to be true and your not going to change us.

Clark Larsen | 5:30 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

I find this conversation so hilarious I don't even know where to begin.

First of all, has Simonerton or Murphy ever said that their evidence is air tight, irrefuttable and that no future science will ever alter their findings in any way? I don't believe either of them have said that, but it sure sounds like those who follow their works are saying just that, again and again.

Second, don't Born-Again Christains believe that the Holy Spirit can manifest truth to them? I recently read where a critic of the Bible has called into question the writings of Bible Apologist Josh McDowell. In response, a Bible beliving Christian responded that she still believed in the Bible because of the "Holy Spirit" telling her it's true. Hmmmmm. So if a Christian feels strongly about the Bible it's the Holy Spirit working. If a Latter-Day Saint feels strongly about the Book of Mormon, it's dismissed by the same Christian as onl;y a "warm fuzzy."

Finally, if the evidence against the Book of Mormon is so irrefuttable and air tight, why does the word "racist" have to be emphasized again and again by critics. Wouldn't the science be able to stand all alone?

Hey Henry Drummond | 5:33 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

What are you talking about? There is no reference to Cyrus the great in the book of Mormon. You are thinking of the Old Testament.

DNA trumps photographs | 5:35 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Scotty,

I trust that you are sincere in your remarks, but I would put more stock in comparing the ATCG's of the genetic code in tracing relationship to the subjective comparisons of photographs. Distinctive changes can occur through restricted breeding. Look at the variety of dog breeds that developed in less than a century.

There are plenty | 5:37 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

of 23 year old talented writers (and they also have editors) I "feel" much truth too..., but not much literal truth. It's time to face reality people!

Moessers | 5:39 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

To Challenge:

Are you serious!? The world both now and in the past is filled with brilliant writers who could easily pen anything comparable or even better to a single chapter! In fact, even a whole book. Your challenge is ridiculous.

That's Right | 5:42 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Read the introduction? Yes, the introduction states that "the Lamanites were the principal ancestors of the American Indians". Let me reiterate...."PRINCIPAL ancestors of the American Indians". The key word here, principal, points to the fact that they were not the ONLY ancestors to the American Indians. Someone supposedly uninspired and making it up would reasonably have said simply that the Lamanites were the ancestors of the American Indians. Further, Jews today have many different ancestors, yet they are still referred to as and considered Jews and of Jewish descent, even when a possible DNA mapping shows otherwise.

Listen | 5:42 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Joe: Indians come from Jews.
Scientist: DNA says they come from Asia.
Joe: SOME of the Indians come from Jews.
Scientist: Do you have proof of that?
Joe: The BoM says their DNA was altered because they were righteous. They turned white.
Scientist: Is black skin evil, then?
Joe: Not anymore. The Mormon people were at fault because they forced their leaders not to give Priesthood to blacks.
Scientist: How do you know the BoM is reliable?
Joe: The Spirit tells me in my heart and in my mind.
Scientist: How do you know that is the Spirit and not your own thoughts, feelings, and wishful thinking?
Joe: I just know. Have you ever tasted salt?
Scientist: Yes.
Joe: Come be baptized and you can work for FARMS.

Things that make you go hmmm | 5:43 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

How could the Jaradites have left the middle-east at the time of the Tower of Babel, when the Tower of Babel never existed?

Things that make you go hmmm.

Victor O Bonberger | 5:44 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Brant Gardner is a good guy, but is the wrong person to be representing a point of view on this topic, even though he is probably correct. There are actual credentialed LDS human DNA experts who have already spoken on this topic on Gardner's side of the issue.

To those who are calling Murphy and Southerton's work and conclusions "science" and "facts", I disagree.

In my profession I work with scientists. My role is to make sure they set up their studies properly in order to effectively test their hypotheses. Murphy and Southerton fail to do this.

DNA matching requires, obviously, two or more samples to compare. Conclusions must be limited to the source of the samples (time, place, etc.) and not go beyond. For a BoM test, you would require a representative sample at 600 BC of all potential populations in the Middle East, plus a sample from the (probably) Asian Steppes at around 2000 BC and compare those to native american samples from the same period (mtDNA and Y chromosome both).

Until we can do this, the argument is meaningless.

And the results... | 5:48 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

At the end of the day there are still over 13 million members of a church that is expanding over the entire earth, as prophesied, that has a mix of devote and casual members. Some quite confident and some quite confused. However, growing rapidly and surviving every criticism and test with impressive results.

Additionally, there are over 6 billion earthly inhabitants that are mostly made up of good people with a vast aray of beliefs and traditions. Some quite confident and some quite confused.

Many will have the story of the book brought to them and many will accept while many will not. Likely, 10, 20 and 30 years from now the membership will expand to impressive numbers.

A most critical scientific truth, within 70 years most if not all of the authors today will know the truth. Until then, it will likely be a matter of faith for science likely cannot prove or disprove the matter.

It is either a great hoax that teaches people sound doctrine of hope, love and service which directs them in positive paths (so, not a bad worse case scenario) or it is a GREAT truth that provides a blueprint for eternal exaltation. CUin70yrs2continuethisdebate...

anon. | 5:50 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

"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."

Johnny: Please cite your reference for Pres. Hinckley, Hunter, Benson, etc. where each of them states what you claim above. Also, please state which definition of "lamanite" you are using to base your claim (the one in Jacob 1 or the one in 4 Nephi).

There is nothing incongruent about the BOM introduction (which is NOT scripture, btw) stating that "[Lamanites] are the principal ancestors of the American Indians" under the 4 Ne. definition of "Lamanite", i.e., everyone who did/does not belong to the Church of Christ set up in 3 Ne 11-18. In fact, unless you hold to the precept that 1) the LDS Church is a restored version of the Church of Christ and 2) you belong to it, then everyone who doesn't fall in that category would be a "Lamanite" under the 4 Ne. definition, regardless of skin color.

DNA (Just one reason) | 6:08 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Kinderhook Plates, Blood Atonement, Masonry, Adam God theory, DNA, Polygamy (that is still practiced albeit in the "celestial kingdom," 9 different versions of the first vision, Joseph Smith and Glass Looking, Teachings of Man lived on moon in pat. blessings, editing of the book of commandments to D of C, revisions of the church history, JS smoking a cigar after a sermon on word of wisdom. It goes on and on and on.
Wake up.
Research any of this (use all of the church teachings if you like....it is all there)
Type any of these in the internet and only read church documents...you will be surprised that this is all part of the history of the mormons.

Stop living the guilt from Bishops and neighbors and live a life of choice.
There is no free agency in the church. People say that there is, but there isnt. You HAVE to follow the leader or you wont make it in the eternal kingdom. That is ridiculous.

Hey Blueberry!!!!! | 6:12 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Hey blueberry or any other LDS member who believes the BOM to be true. I am being completely sincere when I ask this. As an ex-missionary who defended the church, who lived the gospel to the fullest, who through blood sweat and tears, gave two long years of my life plus a good chunk of my life to the cause, how come I never received the answer that it was true? If anyone deserved the answer it was me. How come you or many others were able to receive this confirmation, yet I could not? Trust me, I was worthy, I poured my soul out in prayer and earnestly opened my heart. Nothing! Why?

Laughing Out Loud | 6:13 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

To Listen | 5:42 p.m.

Dude, you rock! That is the funniest thing I have ever read!

Ever Notice | 6:25 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

That those who scoff at the challenge to duplicate Joseph Smith's work always say that there are plenty of talented 25 year old writers, but they never give evidence of a similar book as the Book of Mormon that has been created or written. Why not? Also, notice that the scoffers never will attempt to demonstrate themselves or show just how Joseph Smith did what he did. I know the Book of Mormon is true because the Holy Ghost bore powerful witness of it too me when I was reading it one afternoon in 1988. All the theories regarding how Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon seem rather pitiful once you actually know the truth. How did Joseph Smith create the Doctrine and Covenants, did he plagerize that document too from some unknown source? The real proof of the Book of Mormon is not from DNA, or external evidences at all, its from the withness of the Holy Ghost. I have had that witness given to me in a profound and convincing experience. I can not deny what I know, even though I cant prove it to others. One day all will know the truth.

Completely sincere... | 6:36 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

In repsonse to your inquiry to Blueberry. I believe we each experience and endure specific tests and trials to allow us to achieve our potential. Some tragically lose loved ones as I did my little girl (and struggled with why?). Some are striken with life altering disease. Others have survived all manner of abuse.

My personal believe is that you were handling your test impressively. You became discouraged and stopped short. I truly don't know how I would have handled the same test. The doctrine teaches to endure to the end. Resentment is a repellent to happiness and can destroy so no matter what else you do find a way to overcome what appears to be a large dose of it. Sincerely. We have to be careful what we claim we DESERVE. Forgiveness from our Savior is among the safe list.

Steve | 6:40 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Ever Notice 6:25:

Truer words were never spoken. All of those who scoff never bother to produce their own "version" of a "Book of Mormon". Indeed, they, along with all other anti-Mormons, follow Hugh Nibley's rule of using rhetoric in place of evidence and never bother to do us Mormons the invaulable service of proving that it - writing the BOM that is - could be done. And what they fail to realize is 1) Joseph Smith had a third grade education, he enjoyed no formal training or schooling 2) Joseph simply dictated, he never refered to notes, he never went back or asked where he last left off, he only dictated (by memory if you do not believe his own testimony and the testimony of 11 other witnesses) a 500+ word document in three-four months. Now that is impressive! If Joseph Smith was just a good author, then he is the greatest author who ever lived and deserves posthumously the Nobel Prize in liturature. But the fact is that he was not "just a good author" he was exactly what he said he was. A Prophet of God comissioned to translate a true witness of Jesus Christ.

Hey, "Ever notice " | 6:44 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Have you read many books other than church books? I have. I have too many examples to name in front of me of great book writers of fiction (some young of age.
Just because someone has a good imagination and a belief doesn't make him/or her a prophet.
There is also such a thing as mental illness and there are many examples of that too.

ZZZZZZZZ | 6:50 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

To DNA (Just one reason) - To all of the things you addressed, my response is, "Been there, done that."

You can continue to repackage, retool, reshuffle and rearrange all the old, tired arguments against the LDS Church as much as you would like, but no matter what, they're still tired and old arguments.

Christians on this post having been telling Latter-Day Saints, again and again to "Wake Up." My response is, wake up to what? To the true form of Christianity? What then is true Christianity? Is it the Christianity that supports gay and lesbian clergy, or the type that does not? Is it the true Christianity which teaches the "Word Faith" doctrine, or the type that does not? Is it the true Christianity which accepts the Catholic Church, or the type that does not? Is it the true Christianity which follows people like Benny Hinn, Bob Larson, Paul Crouch and Pat Robertson, or the type that does not?

You want to know why some Christian ministries spend most of their time and resources attacking the LDS Church? Well, if a church can't even agree among itself what true doctrines to follow, then of course it will attack others.

Steve | 6:50 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

RE: comments by 'Hey, "Ever notice"'

Remember how I just wrote - quoting the ever classic Hugh Nibley, of course - that thing about critics using rhetoric in place of evidence? I rest my case.

RE: Completely Sincere | 6:55 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

I am sorry to hear of your struggles and respect your opinion. However, why would I endure to the end in something that wasn't manifested or confirmed to me? I struggled with this from being a sophomore in high school, through my mission and up to a couple years after. I put Moroni's promise to the test and it failed. Since leaving the church, I have never been happier! I have no ill will towards the members as they are some of my favorite people out there. The world is a better place because of Mormonism! I just feel like everyone has a different path that suits them best. I like hearing what active members have to say because there is always a similar tone behind their answer. No hard feelings, but there are many other truths out there. Warmest regards!

Hey 6:44 | 6:57 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Talks cheap, why not give examples of all these "great book writers?" If what you assert is true than you have been caught by your own snare...indeed, if the only criteria for being a prophet is a good imagination and mental illness than we should be swimming in a sea of Book of Mormon type books by now? The Book of Mormon stands alone in what it claims to be and how it claims it was produced. All your other fiction writers are just that, fiction writers by their own admission. Give me a break already.

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.