Reader comments
DNA claims rebutted on Book of Mormon
448 comments | Read story
kairos | 10:02 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007
Can we settle this? the FP's vault contains bones of Zelph,great
nephite/lamanite warrior. All we need is a bone sample/scrape and we can
determine his dna/descendants. Good luck on convincing the FP
to give up the bones-they already know the answer, and it ain't faith promoting!!
to give up the bones-they already know the answer, and it ain't faith promoting!!
Incredulous | 10:06 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007
I have long, long held that if the BOM were one day "proven" (in
actual fact) to be a great fictional story, it would matter not at all to the
vast majority of LDS, who would go on believing in it and defending it
nonetheless.
The dialog herein have proven my point in spades. To the devout, it does not matter if the BOM is true or not, therefore debating it is a fruitless exercise for all concerned. Precious few will modify their positions.
The dialog herein have proven my point in spades. To the devout, it does not matter if the BOM is true or not, therefore debating it is a fruitless exercise for all concerned. Precious few will modify their positions.
Comments continue below
Hey, "True it is" | 10:05 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007
Just curious, how does Galileo play into your little argument?
Maybe my memory deceives me, but I'm pretty sure it was the church that prohibited Galileo's advocacy of heliocentrism, since it was contrary to the literal meaning of Scripture.
Maybe my memory deceives me, but I'm pretty sure it was the church that prohibited Galileo's advocacy of heliocentrism, since it was contrary to the literal meaning of Scripture.
Jewels | 10:07 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007
Instead of acknowledging the real facts, The church would rather excommunicate
people who expose the REAL truth about the church
Slick | 10:28 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007
Is Gardner talking out the side of his mouth or what. Amazing. The truth could
smack Gardner between the eyes and he wouldn't recognize it.
Frozen chosen | 10:41 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007
Thomas,
Could Joseph Smith have guessed the name "Nahom"? Perhaps - but unlikely. Could he have guessed the name for a place which actually exists WITH the correct geographic location AND with the correct time period? "Statistically" speaking, HIGHLY IMPROBABLE!
I'll at least give you credit for offering up the only weak counter argument to Nahom that I've seen on this board (although I noticed you didn't address Bountiful in Oman).
Don't worry, I don't base my testimony of the BofM on Nahom, but I do think that critics will not believe the BofM if they found a sign in Hondouras which said "Welcome to Zarahemla". The doubter can always find reasons to doubt, coincidences and lucky guesses can always be used as possible explanations.
Should you believe the BofM because of Nahom? No. But it should at least open your mind enough for you to read the book yourself and ask God if it's true...
Could Joseph Smith have guessed the name "Nahom"? Perhaps - but unlikely. Could he have guessed the name for a place which actually exists WITH the correct geographic location AND with the correct time period? "Statistically" speaking, HIGHLY IMPROBABLE!
I'll at least give you credit for offering up the only weak counter argument to Nahom that I've seen on this board (although I noticed you didn't address Bountiful in Oman).
Don't worry, I don't base my testimony of the BofM on Nahom, but I do think that critics will not believe the BofM if they found a sign in Hondouras which said "Welcome to Zarahemla". The doubter can always find reasons to doubt, coincidences and lucky guesses can always be used as possible explanations.
Should you believe the BofM because of Nahom? No. But it should at least open your mind enough for you to read the book yourself and ask God if it's true...
nvlawyer | 10:43 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007
Dwayne Anderson:
Your Harvard Quote requires two population sources. First, you need a population source today that has something to do with the second population source and you need to have DNA from both.
You assume -- incorrectly, that the Native Americans who we are testing have occupied the same space since (at best) 400 a.c.e. You are smart enough to know that even the best ruins investigated in Mayan areas only date back to around 600 a.c.e. at best. Even with that, we don't have DNA from even that time (and we are assuming that the Mayans are actually the same people of the BofM, which is mere speculation). So we have niether the original population, nor a current population that we can certify as being the same people possessing the same land. Your reasoning and arguments are fatally flawed. Sorry, but the truth hurts.
Your Harvard Quote requires two population sources. First, you need a population source today that has something to do with the second population source and you need to have DNA from both.
You assume -- incorrectly, that the Native Americans who we are testing have occupied the same space since (at best) 400 a.c.e. You are smart enough to know that even the best ruins investigated in Mayan areas only date back to around 600 a.c.e. at best. Even with that, we don't have DNA from even that time (and we are assuming that the Mayans are actually the same people of the BofM, which is mere speculation). So we have niether the original population, nor a current population that we can certify as being the same people possessing the same land. Your reasoning and arguments are fatally flawed. Sorry, but the truth hurts.
Active Doubter | 11:07 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007
Let's go with what most people would agree upon: DNA, archaeology,
linguistics and other scientific means (not to mention the Mongolian/Navajo
links mentioned above, reportedly acknowledged by Pres. Kimball) confirm with
relative certainty that the vast majority of Native Americans came from Asia
several thousand years ago.
However, Joseph Smith called these same Native Americans "Lamanites" - people who descended from a group that left Jerusalem in 600 BC.
Was Joseph Smith right or is modern science right? Each person who cares to have an interest may decide for himself. The trouble is that people having these conflicting beliefs have to live together at home, work together at Church, etc. It is becoming a significant issue and I think the Church should do something about it. I don't think that taking a hard line against science or allowing amateur archaeologists (like Mr. Gardner) to spout off is going to solve the problem. Does the Church really want to have a significant number of its membership (note the sampling represented here) as closet disbelievers in one of its major tenets?
However, Joseph Smith called these same Native Americans "Lamanites" - people who descended from a group that left Jerusalem in 600 BC.
Was Joseph Smith right or is modern science right? Each person who cares to have an interest may decide for himself. The trouble is that people having these conflicting beliefs have to live together at home, work together at Church, etc. It is becoming a significant issue and I think the Church should do something about it. I don't think that taking a hard line against science or allowing amateur archaeologists (like Mr. Gardner) to spout off is going to solve the problem. Does the Church really want to have a significant number of its membership (note the sampling represented here) as closet disbelievers in one of its major tenets?
nvlawyer | 11:11 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007
One last thought: Someone brought up the norsemen being in American, but no DNA
to prove it, depsite absolute proof of their presence. That reminded me that
there is a DNA problem with dilution in large populations. Once again these
"scientists" never even offer this as a possible problem with their
theory. The Nephites were a significant minority in the much larger population
of Laminites -- who were probably of Asian descent and were probably joined by
Laman and Lemuel -- hence the real reason for the dark skin, e.g., mixing of
races. Kill off the Nephites and dilute the DNA of a few new additions to a much
larger population and you are left with asian descendants alone. nuff said.
Maria | 11:20 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007
In reading through all these comments, I feel like I have been in contact with
creatures from another planet.
derek marlowe | 11:26 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007
to the doubter that wants sources for:
2/3 of members of the LDS church are inactive
and
the church growth rate is in the 3%range
these are undisputed statistics provided by the LDS church. Sorry that nobody told you, but they are readily available. look them up for yourself, I am not your mother.
2/3 of members of the LDS church are inactive
and
the church growth rate is in the 3%range
these are undisputed statistics provided by the LDS church. Sorry that nobody told you, but they are readily available. look them up for yourself, I am not your mother.
Take a moment and ponder this!!! | 11:36 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007
It's funny everyone is going against everyone in this argument. First, I
agree with the mechanic at the top saying basically you are believing that a
computer geek is your scientist. That doesn't make sense to me. Than you
say we should go back to freezing in a cave and believe science not our
religion. Well didn't mine and everyone's God create us. Which would
mean that he would have to have some science knowledge to be able to create
humans the earth or in a nut shell everything. But yet you criticize us and tell
us to live in a cave and freeze did the cavemen have scientists to show them how
to make fire, NO! To mock God and say that we would have to live in a cave and
freeze because we don't believe science is ridiculous, not to mention very
offense to our God who in fact is a scientist. If scientist are so smart than
tell me why we are still trying to figure out the world that God created. I
think we should believe in our God before we believe the people that are trying
to catch up to him and prove him wrong!!!
no-scholar | 11:46 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007
It seems to me that people from both sides have a good argument. However,
it also appears that those who believe in the BofM are somewhat blinded by their
faith. Anything negative about their religion is automatically labeled
"anti" and the person saying it is "apostate". In my
experience, even AFTER reading the book..several times, I was told that I was
doing it wrong/praying wrong because I never got the "fuzzy" feeling
of it being truth...I have come to the conclusion that I'm not going to
base my life on the so-called truths dictated by others...especially ones that
claim that if I don't see things their way, then it's WRONG..."A
foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of the truth" Einstein 1901
ndn native | 11:54 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007
You Gentiles complicate things to much. According to the title page of the Book
of Mormon there are 3 groups of people on earth. The Jews(Judah), the
Lamanites(Joseph-Mannasah) and the gentiles(the rest of the world). The Jews
were scattered throughout the world. The Lamanites were brought to America and
given this land and were cursed, smittened, and scattered acorss the Americas.
The Gentiles were led to America by the spirit. The BofM prophesies of
Christopher Columbus and the Pilgrims coming to America. Could the Asians have
made their way here thru Alaska and could the Vikings have come thru Greenland
and parts of Canada probably. It doesn't matter though. There are only 3
groups of people anyway you slice it. Jews(Judah), Lamanites AKA Native
Americans/Polynesians(Joseph-Mannasah) and the Gentiles(the rest of the world)
according to the title page of the BorM. So please stop complicating things
Gentiles!
For The Guy In Chicago | 12:29 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007
You know what? You're right? Pls forgive us. Sometimes we get so wrapped
up in our own lives and culture that I think we forget that there are others who
don't belong to our church paying attention to us or what we say. Why DOES
The Book of Mormon matter? Because it is the word of God; an additional witness
that Jesus is the Savior of all mankind, or at least wants to be, if we will do
our best to follow Him. The Book of Mormon not only testifies of the reality
and divinity of Christ but also testifies, once one knows for themselves it is
of God, that Christ's divinely authorized and inspired organization, The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, teaches the one true gospel of
Christ to prepare mankind for the Second Coming of Christ and to prepare
God's children for eternal glory and joy in the portion of our life beyond
the grave. In short, The Book of Mormon matters because if mankind follows
it's teachings it will lead us closer to God and His son. I asked God if
it was true and learned it was and now you can too. Good luck!
mchastherapist | 12:55 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007
For some they ask? Why the DNA test? The Book of Mormon indicates that a
remnant of Lehi's sons, Laman and Lemuel's seed, called a remnant of
Jacob, would join the church in the last days and be the ones who build the New
Jerusalem in Missouri. So, who and where are they? Lehi was Hebrew. So would
his sons be. But, if DNA is from the female, If the American Indians are of
Asian descent, who are remnants of Jacob talked about? Someone in there has to
have Hebrew blood. If ancestors of Laman and Lemuel were preserved and migrated
to Asia--Hagoth was a ship builder, so could others have been--and mixed with
Asian blood or Asian females, and their seed moved back to the Americas
somewhere and now are American Indians but with obvious Asian mother ancestors,
who's to know! It doesn't prove the Indians aren't also Hebrew.
The DNA tests already done could leave that to one's imagination.
Doesn't change why you are or aren't a member of the Church.
Christ is still our Savior and Joseph a prophet, and Peter James and John came. And, when you know, you know!
Christ is still our Savior and Joseph a prophet, and Peter James and John came. And, when you know, you know!
Tonto Hershowitz | 1:58 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007
Personally i don't see what all the fuss is about.
Juan Pablo | 6:37 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007
The only one that can prove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon is the Holy
Ghost.
It's like saying, "prove that Jesus is the Son of God by scientific means." Well, we can't. Nobody can't. You just have to "Believe" and have Faith. The Holy Spirit will come to your heart, and if your heart is open, He will let your heart know.
You either believe scientisits, or you believe the Holy Ghost.
It's like saying, "prove that Jesus is the Son of God by scientific means." Well, we can't. Nobody can't. You just have to "Believe" and have Faith. The Holy Spirit will come to your heart, and if your heart is open, He will let your heart know.
You either believe scientisits, or you believe the Holy Ghost.
Incredulouserer | 6:53 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007
Incredulous | 10:06 p.m. Oct. 24, 2007
"I have long, long held that if the BOM were one day "proven" (in actual fact) to be a great fictional story, it would matter not at all to the vast majority of LDS, who would go on believing in it and defending it nonetheless.
The dialog herein have proven my point in spades. To the devout, it does not matter if the BOM is true or not, therefore debating it is a fruitless exercise for all concerned. Precious few will modify their positions."
And what if it were proven true (with actual fact)? Do you think people would come running to join? No, people like you would write it off. Point is, you can't prove its wrong and I can't prove it right. It's one of those things you have to study and learn for yourself.
"I have long, long held that if the BOM were one day "proven" (in actual fact) to be a great fictional story, it would matter not at all to the vast majority of LDS, who would go on believing in it and defending it nonetheless.
The dialog herein have proven my point in spades. To the devout, it does not matter if the BOM is true or not, therefore debating it is a fruitless exercise for all concerned. Precious few will modify their positions."
And what if it were proven true (with actual fact)? Do you think people would come running to join? No, people like you would write it off. Point is, you can't prove its wrong and I can't prove it right. It's one of those things you have to study and learn for yourself.
Anonymous | 7:29 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007
What is unbelievable is how Mormon defenders/apologists will endorse and support
and utilize scientific research when it supports their claims about the Church,
but then turn around and reject science when it may not support the
Church's claims. Science is clearly the fair-weather friend of Mormons, and
that is what makes their claims suspicious.
Afterall, the two best (so far) DNA scientists who originally researched the common LDS claims of the Jewish ancestry of the American Indian were ACTIVE MORMONS when they did it!? From what they have said, they were NOT trying to disprove their faith. That just happened as a side benefit.
Afterall, the two best (so far) DNA scientists who originally researched the common LDS claims of the Jewish ancestry of the American Indian were ACTIVE MORMONS when they did it!? From what they have said, they were NOT trying to disprove their faith. That just happened as a side benefit.
re:Derek Marlowe | 7:30 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007
Dear Mom,
That is how you source facts?
Lucky you never had to take any college courses.
OK, then.
Can't argue with them there non-facts.
That is how you source facts?
Lucky you never had to take any college courses.
OK, then.
Can't argue with them there non-facts.
Call Me Ted | 7:33 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007
The DNA research DOES change things dramatically for me. It opened a crack to
let the light in, and now I am seeing clearly for the first time in ten years!
The claims of the LDS Church are unsupportable, untestable, and absurd in most
cases. I can finally relax and ignore the extreme fanaticism they have foisted
on me for the past ten years!
Interesting | 7:45 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007
I think it's great that science has obtained a greater knowledge about DNA.
I hope that scientists can obtain the funding to do more research in the area of
DNA and microbiology. I don't believe DNA information can ever prove or
disapprove the truthfulness of the BOM. Only the Sprit of God can do that.
Mazer2soc | 7:52 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007
Let's see. 'Ol' Joe Smith, Jr. Prophet or charlatan.
Let's see what what some other guys said about all of this: Oliver Cowdrey,
David Whitmer And Martin Harris. Yeah. These three knew for sure. Oh. And then
there are these: Christian Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer, Jr., John
Whitmer, Hiram Page, Joseph Smith, Sen., Hyrum Smith and Samuel H. Smith. We
can even add the name of Sidney Rigdon to the list if we want. Interesting that
some of these gentlemen even turned against Jo Smith BUT none ever renounced or
refuted what they saw, what they witnessed. No! Not one. And in fact, one even
was an instigator of his death. Besides the Book of Mormon and the work that
was started in 1830, and is still growing and growing, there can be only one
conclusion: Joseph Smith, Jr. is the Prophet of the Restoration. So be careful,
all you who feel you must fight against him and his work. You could find
yourself fighting against God and His work for all his children, including even
you and me! That's not a good place to be, fighting against God, no sir-ee,
period!
Observer | 7:55 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007
The role of science is to explore the practical implications of our beliefs and
theories. The theory that the American Indian descended from Jewish ancestors
has been articulated in a number of different ways by a number of different LDS
Church leaders. Which of these differing theories is being tested?
And since these DNA researchers have published their findings, the scientific process will kick in to refine the theories and improve the research. That is why BYU is staffing up with researchers qualified for the task. Good luck to them. BYU researchers' credentials and research have historically been suspect because they have obvious and powerful biases. And in many cases, the best credentialed LDS researchers actually leave the Church.
This should be interesting to watch over the next decade or so. In the interim, I will keep my 10% sin premium and enjoy a little wine with my dinner. Good luck to you all!
And since these DNA researchers have published their findings, the scientific process will kick in to refine the theories and improve the research. That is why BYU is staffing up with researchers qualified for the task. Good luck to them. BYU researchers' credentials and research have historically been suspect because they have obvious and powerful biases. And in many cases, the best credentialed LDS researchers actually leave the Church.
This should be interesting to watch over the next decade or so. In the interim, I will keep my 10% sin premium and enjoy a little wine with my dinner. Good luck to you all!
Wow, Cognitive Dissonance | 8:08 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007
I see so much Cognitive Dissonance going on here it's almost mind bogling.
And the sad thing is, the people doing it don't even realize it. Some of
you decided that a book is true and that nothing will sway you. Be aware,
however, that there are many more people in the world (billions to be exact)
that don't and will never believe. Your thirteen million (much less if you
count inactives) pales in comparison to our numbers. Hopefully some of you
received some information that will cause you to research (even if you
won't admit it). In fact, I know some will because I was one years ago
before I started to search. I hope that some of you will have the courage to
speak out and not (silently pretend) like so many people do.
This is my wish for you.
This is my wish for you.
what's it's not | 8:16 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007
To Incredulous, Take a moment and ponder this!!! , no-scholar, etc , etc, etc -
It not proof the church is not true. It's evidence the Jews DNA in the old
hasn't shown up in Indians in the new world!
What the DNA "experts" at the center of this controversy don't have is Jewish DNA samples from before and after the time that Lehi's family DNA, and the other's DNA that left Jerusalem 2600 years ago. They also don't have DNA samples from Jaredites that left from around the tower of Babel roughly 5000 years ago. They also don't have samples from the people that came to the Americas
that we have no record of.
So again it's not proof!
What it is proof of...Is that those that want so badly for the church to not be true that they, the non-believers, will use this as justifacation for non-belief. "Can't be true because the scientist told me so!" Doesn't matter their conclusions, these "expert" scientists might be tainted by anti-LDS bias does it?
It isn't game , match, point as badly as you yearn for it to be!
What the DNA "experts" at the center of this controversy don't have is Jewish DNA samples from before and after the time that Lehi's family DNA, and the other's DNA that left Jerusalem 2600 years ago. They also don't have DNA samples from Jaredites that left from around the tower of Babel roughly 5000 years ago. They also don't have samples from the people that came to the Americas
that we have no record of.
So again it's not proof!
What it is proof of...Is that those that want so badly for the church to not be true that they, the non-believers, will use this as justifacation for non-belief. "Can't be true because the scientist told me so!" Doesn't matter their conclusions, these "expert" scientists might be tainted by anti-LDS bias does it?
It isn't game , match, point as badly as you yearn for it to be!
Mr. Mr. | 8:22 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007
The fuss is really about the fuss of what constitutes knowledge of history. If
you don't think there's a problem with faith based history as opposed
to evidence based history, then perhaps your content with people inventing their
own history while ignoring overwhelming evidence that faith based history is
bunk.
It's funny how science is lame and stupid when it contradicts religious belief, but when science (pseudo-science) "proves" religious belief, then suddenly science is placed on a pedestal of truth.
It's funny how science is lame and stupid when it contradicts religious belief, but when science (pseudo-science) "proves" religious belief, then suddenly science is placed on a pedestal of truth.
J | 8:44 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007
The object of "true" sciene and "true" religion are to come
to the truth of all things. They may take different paths but eventually they
will cross.
Matters of faith as said many times cannot be proved or disproved by science.
As science gains more knowledge on a subject the theories change. But to say the science we have today disproves the validity of the BofM seems absurd becasue todays theories will be outdated in a few years from now. We used to belive the world was flat or the sun revolved around the earth. Those theories changed as we gained more knowledge.
However, as people of faith we need to keep our minds open to "true" science. Becasue a scientist will come to the truth before a religious zealot will. Look at the dark ages.
I used to believe the only people that were in the Americas where those spoken of in the BofM and that people did not come across the Bering Strait. However, as I have grown older and learned more I have changed my opinon. The BofM did not preclude people from other migrating to the Americas.
Matters of faith as said many times cannot be proved or disproved by science.
As science gains more knowledge on a subject the theories change. But to say the science we have today disproves the validity of the BofM seems absurd becasue todays theories will be outdated in a few years from now. We used to belive the world was flat or the sun revolved around the earth. Those theories changed as we gained more knowledge.
However, as people of faith we need to keep our minds open to "true" science. Becasue a scientist will come to the truth before a religious zealot will. Look at the dark ages.
I used to believe the only people that were in the Americas where those spoken of in the BofM and that people did not come across the Bering Strait. However, as I have grown older and learned more I have changed my opinon. The BofM did not preclude people from other migrating to the Americas.
A Scientist | 9:04 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007
To Elijah Abel
I am serious. When I talk about genetic profile I mean the actual DNA markers that they are using to track the peoples ancestry, not a generalization that these people are descendants of Lamanites. The introduction to the Book of Mormon that says that "the Lamanites were the principal ancestors of the American Indians" was written by Bruce R. McConkie, as I understand it, and was not part of the original book. I am not apologizing for the fact that it says that, because I believe that it is true, but you ought to understand where it comes from. But the word "principal" here doesn't refer to ancestors with Lehi's Y-chromosome or Sariah's mitochondrial DNA. It refers to a linage through which people receive their spiritual blessings.
I feel sorry that you find application of the term "Lamanite" incredibly offensive. You must not appreciate the Book of Mormon the way I do. The dark skin spoken of was not the curse, it was a mark of the curse in the beginning to keep the Nephites from marrying those who didn't have their faith. The curse was actually that the Lamanites cut themselves off from God.
I am serious. When I talk about genetic profile I mean the actual DNA markers that they are using to track the peoples ancestry, not a generalization that these people are descendants of Lamanites. The introduction to the Book of Mormon that says that "the Lamanites were the principal ancestors of the American Indians" was written by Bruce R. McConkie, as I understand it, and was not part of the original book. I am not apologizing for the fact that it says that, because I believe that it is true, but you ought to understand where it comes from. But the word "principal" here doesn't refer to ancestors with Lehi's Y-chromosome or Sariah's mitochondrial DNA. It refers to a linage through which people receive their spiritual blessings.
I feel sorry that you find application of the term "Lamanite" incredibly offensive. You must not appreciate the Book of Mormon the way I do. The dark skin spoken of was not the curse, it was a mark of the curse in the beginning to keep the Nephites from marrying those who didn't have their faith. The curse was actually that the Lamanites cut themselves off from God.
More like the Jews | 9:13 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007
Actually what we need to do is test the anti- posters to see if they have Jewish
blood in them, because remarkably they are sounding and acting like the Jews in
Jesus Christ's time. Using the same types of arguments against the LDS
church as they used against Him and his church. They said Jesus couldn't be
the Chirst, "He's the Carpenter's son.", "We have his
mother and brothers and sisters amongst us",(That's "proof"
if I ever saw it!) His teachings go against established doctrine, He's
adding to our scriptures("We Have Moses and the Prophets."), etc.and
then in the next breath they accused him of being a Samaritan, lunatic,
charlatan magician(We have it's equivalent applied to JS in our day.), etc.
They were so busy looking for reasons to not believe they missed real proof...His teachings, fulfillment of prophecy, spiritual feelings when He preached, etc.
Hiding in plain sight?
It was easier for them to believe lies detractors spread about Christ. Believing would require a change in their lives and beliefs.
Hmmmmmmmm! That sound familiar to you?
"Funny how the more things change...The more they stay the same."
"If you can't learn from the past...You're doomed to repeat it!"
They were so busy looking for reasons to not believe they missed real proof...His teachings, fulfillment of prophecy, spiritual feelings when He preached, etc.
Hiding in plain sight?
It was easier for them to believe lies detractors spread about Christ. Believing would require a change in their lives and beliefs.
Hmmmmmmmm! That sound familiar to you?
"Funny how the more things change...The more they stay the same."
"If you can't learn from the past...You're doomed to repeat it!"
Bottom Line | 9:19 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007
Bottom line...the DNA search does not support our belief that the BOM is true,
BUT it does NOT disprove it, since the genetic markers may be impossible to
find. Disappointing, yes, the final word?, far from it.
Oh, by the way, for Mr. Drummond...the BOM has no reference the Cyrus the great. You obviously have not read the book. Read before you criticize.
Lastly, as I said much earlier, the logical approach (setting aside warm fuzzies) is to examine the character of the person who produced the book. He is a contemporary individual, with much written about him. My analysis of his character, of recent months, has left me wondering about his character. There is not time or space here to discuss it, but there are solid JS histories that explore many troubling aspects to his character in a neutral (and truthful) fashion. I think this is a more fruitful field to examine for us logical thinkers.
Oh, by the way, for Mr. Drummond...the BOM has no reference the Cyrus the great. You obviously have not read the book. Read before you criticize.
Lastly, as I said much earlier, the logical approach (setting aside warm fuzzies) is to examine the character of the person who produced the book. He is a contemporary individual, with much written about him. My analysis of his character, of recent months, has left me wondering about his character. There is not time or space here to discuss it, but there are solid JS histories that explore many troubling aspects to his character in a neutral (and truthful) fashion. I think this is a more fruitful field to examine for us logical thinkers.
Wondering | 9:20 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007
This DNA debate certainly creates questions in a reasonable person's mind.
I share the same question posted ealier: what difference does it make whether or
not the Book of Mormon is "true"? Does it contain some secret to
success or an answer to the woes of the world?
If it does, then we would expect the Mormon people to be a far superior society/subculture than all others, wouldn't we? I mean, if you have the answers to life's questions, that would necessarily follow, wouldn't it?
But what does the evidence show? Mormons are as troubled by the problems of society as any group around. They are just regular people, with problems and fears and average performance, etc. So what exactly are these wonderful secrets that nobody should be without? They don't seem to be working for you!
If it does, then we would expect the Mormon people to be a far superior society/subculture than all others, wouldn't we? I mean, if you have the answers to life's questions, that would necessarily follow, wouldn't it?
But what does the evidence show? Mormons are as troubled by the problems of society as any group around. They are just regular people, with problems and fears and average performance, etc. So what exactly are these wonderful secrets that nobody should be without? They don't seem to be working for you!
The Salamandar letter? | 9:27 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007
Bobby Miles Doopay - brings in the Salamandar letter as something the LDS should
consider as another 'nail' in the coffin...Actually that letter was a
forgery, and as such was shown to be false. Hoffman had been cookin' the
'antiquities' he'd been selling for years.
As a member of the LDS church I'm supposed to believe a known forgery? I'm supposed to take that as anti "proof"?
Wow! Thanks for doing my thinking for me. I'll sleep better knowing you're looking out for me!
As a member of the LDS church I'm supposed to believe a known forgery? I'm supposed to take that as anti "proof"?
Wow! Thanks for doing my thinking for me. I'll sleep better knowing you're looking out for me!
A Scientist | 9:31 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007
To Elijah Abel (continued):
Cursing comes when you cut yourself off from God, and the mark can be different, depending on who you are. Thus, later in the Book of Mormon we learn that the mark of the curse was a mark that people made on themselves in their forehead, as a sign that they had split off from God's chosen people. As I noted before, my children are of Native American descent though their maternal great-grandfather . (And as I also noted, I can't prove that they are his descendants using the two types of DNA spoken of, though it is only 3 generations, and not 2600 years). I rejoice in the knowledge that my children are possibly of Lamanite origin and teach them of the promises that are given to those of Lamanite ancestry. The Book of Mormon was �Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel� to show unto the remnant of the House of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever.� Lamanites (and others) believing this are not cursed.
Cursing comes when you cut yourself off from God, and the mark can be different, depending on who you are. Thus, later in the Book of Mormon we learn that the mark of the curse was a mark that people made on themselves in their forehead, as a sign that they had split off from God's chosen people. As I noted before, my children are of Native American descent though their maternal great-grandfather . (And as I also noted, I can't prove that they are his descendants using the two types of DNA spoken of, though it is only 3 generations, and not 2600 years). I rejoice in the knowledge that my children are possibly of Lamanite origin and teach them of the promises that are given to those of Lamanite ancestry. The Book of Mormon was �Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel� to show unto the remnant of the House of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever.� Lamanites (and others) believing this are not cursed.
Splitting hairs | 9:56 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007
Active Doubter wrote - "However, Joseph Smith called these same Native
Americans "Lamanites" - people who descended from a group that left
Jerusalem in 600 BC.
Was Joseph Smith right or is modern science right?"
You're doing backflips because the DNA doesn't show they're "Jews"?
Actually He said they were decendents of Lehi a decendent of Joseph through Mannessah. Read the BOM!
Come to think of it the DNA supports what the BOM stated all along! No Jewish blood in the Lamanites!
Do you "...strain at a gnat and swallow a camel"?
Ya got a DNA sample from Joseph? Mannasah?
I thought so!
Neither do your scientist buddies!
Was Joseph Smith right or is modern science right?"
You're doing backflips because the DNA doesn't show they're "Jews"?
Actually He said they were decendents of Lehi a decendent of Joseph through Mannessah. Read the BOM!
Come to think of it the DNA supports what the BOM stated all along! No Jewish blood in the Lamanites!
Do you "...strain at a gnat and swallow a camel"?
Ya got a DNA sample from Joseph? Mannasah?
I thought so!
Neither do your scientist buddies!
Thomas | 10:05 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007
NVlawyer -- The problem with the comparison to the Norse in America is that
their presence lasted probably no more than a century, and never amounted to
more than a handful of families. And the sources we have -- the Vinland Sagas
(which I've read in the original Old Norse, BTW) make it clear there was no
intermarriage, or even much contact with the natives -- who were constantly
trying to kill the new arrivals, whose settlement was finally abandoned for that
reason.
The Book of Mormon describes an entirely different scenario. The Hebrew-derived Nephites numbered in the millions. They were present in the Americas for close to a thousand years. Multiple instances of large-scale intermarriage are recorded (for example, the constant joining of Nephite dissenters to the Lamanites).
If you draw the most reasonable conclusions from the text, the most likely conclusion is that Nephite genes were broadly distributed among the local population. That makes it harder to explain why it should have disappeared entirely over the next fifteen hundred years.
The Book of Mormon describes an entirely different scenario. The Hebrew-derived Nephites numbered in the millions. They were present in the Americas for close to a thousand years. Multiple instances of large-scale intermarriage are recorded (for example, the constant joining of Nephite dissenters to the Lamanites).
If you draw the most reasonable conclusions from the text, the most likely conclusion is that Nephite genes were broadly distributed among the local population. That makes it harder to explain why it should have disappeared entirely over the next fifteen hundred years.
Chicago Perspective | 10:10 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007
What's that you say? There are people out there that do not believe in the
Book of Mormon? Really?
And they tell people about the reasons why they don't believe it? On the internet even? No!
This all comes as shocking news. If only I had gotten the memo.
I guess I will just have to continue the selfish act of being the one to choose my faith, along with my reasoning behind it.
And they tell people about the reasons why they don't believe it? On the internet even? No!
This all comes as shocking news. If only I had gotten the memo.
I guess I will just have to continue the selfish act of being the one to choose my faith, along with my reasoning behind it.
Thomas | 10:17 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007
Frozen -- As I said, I'm not a statistician. We may *think* the appearance
of "Nahom" in the Book of Mormon and "NHM" in southern
Arabia is an unusual coincidence, but neither of us really knows what the actual
odds are. Neither do we know what the odds would be that there would be some
islands in the Indian Ocean named the "Comoros," whose capital city is
"Moroni."
As to the argument that "NHM" is "exactly where the Book of Mormon says it would be" -- the text is general enough to cover thousands of square miles.
As I said, it's an interesting coincidence, but I couldn't get it into court as evidence without some expert testimony by a statistician giving a rough idea of just how unlikely a semi-random coincidence would be.
Re: "Bountiful," the story required enough timber to build a ship. I've seen pictures of the wadi in "Bountiful," and while it's a lot greener than the surrounding desert, the scrubby, brushy trees don't look like particularly great ship-building material. It certainly comes closer to matching the text than the surrounding territory, but it's not exactly a slam-dunk evidence, either.
As to the argument that "NHM" is "exactly where the Book of Mormon says it would be" -- the text is general enough to cover thousands of square miles.
As I said, it's an interesting coincidence, but I couldn't get it into court as evidence without some expert testimony by a statistician giving a rough idea of just how unlikely a semi-random coincidence would be.
Re: "Bountiful," the story required enough timber to build a ship. I've seen pictures of the wadi in "Bountiful," and while it's a lot greener than the surrounding desert, the scrubby, brushy trees don't look like particularly great ship-building material. It certainly comes closer to matching the text than the surrounding territory, but it's not exactly a slam-dunk evidence, either.
Safety in numbers? | 10:18 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007
Wow, Cognitive Dissonance wrote - "Your thirteen million (much less if you
count inactives) pales in comparison to our numbers."
I'm sure that's what the last lemming going over the cliff says on his way down, too!
There are hundreds of millions believing Muslims...I should go join them because of their numbers? Drug users...Yep!Lots of them too. They even tell me LSD will expand my mind! "Cool man!"
Actually it takes more courage to speak out against the crowd...Especially when you're in the minority(I'm talking about us in comparison to the world.)when it's unpopular, when you're derided for your beliefs, etc.
"I hope that some of you will have the courage to speak out and not (silently pretend) like so many people do.
This is my wish for you."
I'm glad that you can be "conscience" for so many "pretenders".
If you've "searched and found" what you want to believe concerning the church....
My wish for you...That you've went to the right source, and not "pretending" like others do when they leave the church because they weren't striving to keep the spirit in their lives. So they lost their testimony...If they ever had one. Then leave..."Finding the better way!"
I'm sure that's what the last lemming going over the cliff says on his way down, too!
There are hundreds of millions believing Muslims...I should go join them because of their numbers? Drug users...Yep!Lots of them too. They even tell me LSD will expand my mind! "Cool man!"
Actually it takes more courage to speak out against the crowd...Especially when you're in the minority(I'm talking about us in comparison to the world.)when it's unpopular, when you're derided for your beliefs, etc.
"I hope that some of you will have the courage to speak out and not (silently pretend) like so many people do.
This is my wish for you."
I'm glad that you can be "conscience" for so many "pretenders".
If you've "searched and found" what you want to believe concerning the church....
My wish for you...That you've went to the right source, and not "pretending" like others do when they leave the church because they weren't striving to keep the spirit in their lives. So they lost their testimony...If they ever had one. Then leave..."Finding the better way!"
Animals Evil? | 10:28 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007
I absolutely agree, if the BOM is shown one way or another to be true or untrue
the majority on either side would not change their perspective.
Haven't we proven that eggs are bad for you? And yet people still eat way too many. And haven't we proven that eggs are good for you? Yet people dont eat enough. Not to mention Milk. And sometimes water.
I know I wouldnt change. My perspective of the BOM is built on my experience of having the only "person" I trust 100.00% tell me it was. For me to believe otherwise that same "person" would have to tell me otherwise. So far he's not impressed.
Haven't we proven that eggs are bad for you? And yet people still eat way too many. And haven't we proven that eggs are good for you? Yet people dont eat enough. Not to mention Milk. And sometimes water.
I know I wouldnt change. My perspective of the BOM is built on my experience of having the only "person" I trust 100.00% tell me it was. For me to believe otherwise that same "person" would have to tell me otherwise. So far he's not impressed.
The Church? | 10:31 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007
Hey, "True it is" wrote - "Just curious, how does Galileo play
into your little argument?
Maybe my memory deceives me, but I'm pretty sure it was the church that prohibited Galileo's advocacy of heliocentrism, since it was contrary to the literal meaning of Scripture."
The "Church" you're referring to is the Catholic church.
As far as Galileo and the BOM are concerned it's right in the BOM!
The BOM says the Lamanites are from Joseph through Mannasseh not Judah...So what's the big deal with Jewish DNA? Yawn! Non-Issue!
Maybe my memory deceives me, but I'm pretty sure it was the church that prohibited Galileo's advocacy of heliocentrism, since it was contrary to the literal meaning of Scripture."
The "Church" you're referring to is the Catholic church.
As far as Galileo and the BOM are concerned it's right in the BOM!
The BOM says the Lamanites are from Joseph through Mannasseh not Judah...So what's the big deal with Jewish DNA? Yawn! Non-Issue!
Timothy of Trail | 10:41 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007
The Book of Mormon cannot be proven to be wrong to some people
(Incredulouserer's view) because they refuse to open their mind to the
scientific and historical evidence that abundantly proves that it is not a true
history of peoples in the ancient Americas. The DNA evidence that has
genetically connected Native Americas with Asians (from northeast Asia) and not
Jews/Israelis only supports what archeologists have determined, namely that the
ancestors of American Indians came from northeast Asia several millenia ago (and
not from Israel about 2,600 years ago).
Why do some Latter-day Saints refuse to acknowledge in their minds all the scientific, historical, and linguistic evidence that does not support The Book of Mormon? The answer is obvious: To do so would result in the collapse of their religious belief system since The Book of Mormon is the keystone of the LDS religion. Losing one's faith is not the end of the world, however. People mature psychologically and move on with their lives. Some people ("New Order Mormons") continue to participate in the LDS Church for social and family reasons, but no longer believe in foundational church teachings and claims. It's OK to grow up.
Why do some Latter-day Saints refuse to acknowledge in their minds all the scientific, historical, and linguistic evidence that does not support The Book of Mormon? The answer is obvious: To do so would result in the collapse of their religious belief system since The Book of Mormon is the keystone of the LDS religion. Losing one's faith is not the end of the world, however. People mature psychologically and move on with their lives. Some people ("New Order Mormons") continue to participate in the LDS Church for social and family reasons, but no longer believe in foundational church teachings and claims. It's OK to grow up.
Aint ya learnt to read? | 10:54 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007
re:Derek Marlowe - 7:30 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007- wrote-
"Dear Mom,
That is how you source facts?
Lucky you never had to take any college courses.
OK, then.
Can't argue with them there non-facts."
Aint ya learnt to read in grade skool?
Guess what if all the anti posters had read the BOM they'd find out the Jewish DNA is a non-issue.
Lamanites/Lemuelites are sons of Lehi decended from Joseph through Mannaseh! They split before the Mulekites(JEWS)came on the scene! The majority Lamanites pretty much wiped out the minority Nephite/Mulekites!
Hmmmm! No Jewish blood?
No argument there!
My oh my...I can still keep my Sunday go to LDS church card!
"Dear Mom,
That is how you source facts?
Lucky you never had to take any college courses.
OK, then.
Can't argue with them there non-facts."
Aint ya learnt to read in grade skool?
Guess what if all the anti posters had read the BOM they'd find out the Jewish DNA is a non-issue.
Lamanites/Lemuelites are sons of Lehi decended from Joseph through Mannaseh! They split before the Mulekites(JEWS)came on the scene! The majority Lamanites pretty much wiped out the minority Nephite/Mulekites!
Hmmmm! No Jewish blood?
No argument there!
My oh my...I can still keep my Sunday go to LDS church card!
sb | 11:15 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007
I have a question relating to DNA. When they do DNA testing, is it true or not
true they are only able to follow along the paternal line? If so,
doesn�t this exclude a lot of people when it comes to
tracing and comparing one group of people to another?
TYLER | 11:32 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007
TO "WONDERING" just thought I'd clarify that Mormon people are
quite happy successful people. The Mormon church donates more than any other
church on the earth, that's a verifiable fact. I wouldn't say that we
are superior by any stretch of the imagination, but as a people we are happy,
giving, culture and I believe that our testimonies of that Book allow us to deal
with life's troubles far more easily than without them. Please don't
think that we feel superior, however I personally find comfort in the truthful
words of the Book of Mormon. They are working for me!
Mike Reid | 11:32 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007
There is a simple verse in Jacob 7 that might speak volumes as to the erroneous
assumption that the children of Lehi found an empty land:
1 And now it came to pass after some years had passed away, there came a man among the people of Nephi, whose name was Sherem.
So why would the writer describe a Nephite like this? To me it sounds like he was an outsider. A later verse indicates that he knew their language.
So this debate about DNA is irrelevant. The Book of Mormon is never going to be proven true by DNA, or archeology, etc. That is not the point of scripture, nor is it how God operates.
1 And now it came to pass after some years had passed away, there came a man among the people of Nephi, whose name was Sherem.
So why would the writer describe a Nephite like this? To me it sounds like he was an outsider. A later verse indicates that he knew their language.
So this debate about DNA is irrelevant. The Book of Mormon is never going to be proven true by DNA, or archeology, etc. That is not the point of scripture, nor is it how God operates.
TYLER | 11:50 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007
to "wow cognitive dissonance" You asked people to speak out so here I
am. You're right about billions of people not believing...yet! Billions of
people have never even heard of it! But either in this life or the next people
will hear any many will believe. I am a person who has read literature that
cotradicts the Book of Mormon, but it means nothing to me. What many people
choose to ignore is that there is no possible way a 23 year old farmer with an
elementary education could write such a contraversial book that fits so
flawlessly with the Bible and Christ's atonement. Pioneers crossed the
country sacrificing everything for their religion. Throw all the Anti-Mormon
garbage you want at me but it won't even phase me and my faith.
Logical approach? | 12:02 p.m. Oct. 25, 2007
Bottom Line wrote - "the logical approach (setting aside warm fuzzies) is
to examine the character of the person who produced the book. He is a
contemporary individual, with much written about him."
If (setting aside warm fuzzies) can bring you to truth...Why does Jesus send the comforter(Testifier of truth.) in the NT?
God's truth is truth. The only place you should go for truth about JS is GOD.
Reading anti will bring doubts. They write it that way for that reason.
"My analysis of his character, of recent months, has left me wondering about his character. There is not time or space here to discuss it, but there are solid JS histories that explore many troubling aspects to his character in a neutral (and truthful) fashion. I think this is a more fruitful field to examine for us logical thinkers."
"solid JS histories"? Name them!
You've abandoned logic! Find he's of God w/o God? There's no "neutral" fashion to examine JS...It's
a subject that can't be neutral. Either he is or he isn't God's prophet!
You can't read "contempt-ary"(Agenda?, motives?, vendettas?) histories to examine(Eviscerate) his character.
God/Holy Ghost/spritual truth inseparable...
Spiritual truth...Sorry can't get it w/o HGhost(Warm, fuzzies?)!
If (setting aside warm fuzzies) can bring you to truth...Why does Jesus send the comforter(Testifier of truth.) in the NT?
God's truth is truth. The only place you should go for truth about JS is GOD.
Reading anti will bring doubts. They write it that way for that reason.
"My analysis of his character, of recent months, has left me wondering about his character. There is not time or space here to discuss it, but there are solid JS histories that explore many troubling aspects to his character in a neutral (and truthful) fashion. I think this is a more fruitful field to examine for us logical thinkers."
"solid JS histories"? Name them!
You've abandoned logic! Find he's of God w/o God? There's no "neutral" fashion to examine JS...It's
a subject that can't be neutral. Either he is or he isn't God's prophet!
You can't read "contempt-ary"(Agenda?, motives?, vendettas?) histories to examine(Eviscerate) his character.
God/Holy Ghost/spritual truth inseparable...
Spiritual truth...Sorry can't get it w/o HGhost(Warm, fuzzies?)!
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.
- Mitchell called intelligent, controlling 1:19 a.m.
- Brems outlasts 2nd round of votes 1:04 a.m.
- 2 families divided over slaying 1:04 a.m.
- Teen shot in scuffle with trooper 1:03 a.m.
- Nature's Way leaving Utah County 1:03 a.m.
- 'Grandfamilies' a growing trend 12:31 a.m.
- 'Cyber Monday' sales top records 12:29 a.m.
- 2 citations issued at Y.-U. game 12:26 a.m.
- No drugs in driver of Am.F. band bus 12:15 a.m.
- Governor Mansion to begin free tours 12:14 a.m.
- Hall's pain reflects self-betrayal
- Y. student vanished in China
- Max Hall issues apology
- Utes won't respond to Hall
- Hall reprimanded by MWC
- Cougs begin bowl preparations
- Teen shot in scuffle with trooper
- Mitchell called intelligent, controlling
- Matthews passes new Jazz tests
- Daughter: Mitchell fed me my pet
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah
898 - Cougars beat Utes in overtime481
- Max Hall issues apology379
- Hall reprimanded by MWC370
- Hall's pain reflects self-betrayal316
- Utes won't respond to Hall257
- BYU is champion of the state140
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies121
- Cave to be sealed with body inside120
- Religion in politics is tiresome110
Live 'Twittologue' Dec. 2, 4:00 p.m. with Jason Chaffetz. Click for more.
I wanted to tell them not to go. I dropped subtle hints. "My money is on...
When I was a kid, I worshipped my grandpa. He was undoubtedly my hero....
Latest comments
There are some games I love not on your list. Arkham Asylum for one.
Our parents made my brothers help kill and clean our rabbits before we ate...
Why would you keep it open? I would understand if there was a lot of amazing...
The government will run our health care well? Read Reader's Digest, November...
TCU stomped on the MWC so they are naturally ready to crush Florida, Alabama...
could you understand Dave Locke any more than my mom does and she is not even...
Attending the ND/BYU game 3 years ago in south bend, a couple of things stuck...
I missed the game, actually i heard a little bit of Locke on the radio (man...
quotes were good: Article was dumb and unnecessary.
I believe the art depicting Joseph looking at the plates may possibly be...
Advertisements
It was not a mistranslation. Joseph Smith didn't "literally" translate the papyri, he used them as inspiration in receiving the revelation for the Book of Abraham.