Reader comments
DNA claims rebutted on Book of Mormon
448 comments | Read story
Anonymous | 12:54 p.m. Oct. 25, 2007
Timothy of Trail wrote - "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?"
What scientific, historical and linguistic evidence?
Let's start with linguistic...Lots of words that are related to hebrew show up in Indian languages. Some pretty much dead on. Most of the written language that we can see on temples(Certainly doesn't tell us where they came from.) can't even be accurately read at this time. Maybe that could tell us more than some scientific theory about their origins.
Historical? I guess it really depends on whose writing the history doesn't it. The native culture's oral histories talk about coming on boats not a land bridge! Could their own accounts be more accurate than some scientific theory?
Scientific? Again depends on whose analyzing the "evidence"!
Digging up temples, houses, pots, graves,etc tells everything want to know about people's history, religion, ancestry?
Scientific theory((In!)accurate?)
Written history would be more accurate wouldn't it(Dispel misconceptions.)?
"Why do some Latter-day Saints refuse to acknowledge in their minds all the"
Well...It's not proof!
Why go to fallible scientists w/incomplete evidence.
Want proof go to God!
What scientific, historical and linguistic evidence?
Let's start with linguistic...Lots of words that are related to hebrew show up in Indian languages. Some pretty much dead on. Most of the written language that we can see on temples(Certainly doesn't tell us where they came from.) can't even be accurately read at this time. Maybe that could tell us more than some scientific theory about their origins.
Historical? I guess it really depends on whose writing the history doesn't it. The native culture's oral histories talk about coming on boats not a land bridge! Could their own accounts be more accurate than some scientific theory?
Scientific? Again depends on whose analyzing the "evidence"!
Digging up temples, houses, pots, graves,etc tells everything want to know about people's history, religion, ancestry?
Scientific theory((In!)accurate?)
Written history would be more accurate wouldn't it(Dispel misconceptions.)?
"Why do some Latter-day Saints refuse to acknowledge in their minds all the"
Well...It's not proof!
Why go to fallible scientists w/incomplete evidence.
Want proof go to God!
Thomas | 1:23 p.m. Oct. 25, 2007
Guys -- JUDAH AND MANASSEH HAD THE SAME FATHER. So yes, descendants of Judah
and descendants of Manasseh would have common DNA material. It just would come
from one generation further back.
Comments continue below
re:Aint ya learned to read | 1:27 p.m. Oct. 25, 2007
Huh?
Yeah, just throw stuff on the wall a see what sticks.
I never learned to read incoherance...
Yeah, just throw stuff on the wall a see what sticks.
I never learned to read incoherance...
Thomas | 1:30 p.m. Oct. 25, 2007
Oops -- make that "Judah and Manasseh both descended from Jacob."
Judah was his son; Manasseh his grandson. Either way, both of them (and their
descendants) are descendants of Jacob, and would be expected to have common
genes inherited from Jacob.
Ken Goddard | 1:31 p.m. Oct. 25, 2007
They are still looking for a (any) stitch of proof that the bible stuff even
existed let alone the book of mormon. I personally think they are both fables.
But no one should care about religion one way or another if only it was totally
separated from the tax code, totally excluded from the political area, and, a
requirement that all charity collected be disbursed towards beneficial causes
for the betterment of society. No hoarding, none of these corporate churches or
otherwise large scale business enterprises like we have now. As is now stands,
"religion" is turning into a money racket where society might be
better off without it.
Thomas | 1:42 p.m. Oct. 25, 2007
Mazer2soc advises us to "be careful" lest we find ourselves
"fighting against God."
Sir, that's *exactly* what I'm doing.
Our God is a God of truth, and cannot lie. Also, as Peter said, we ought to obey God rather than men. I want to be on the true God's side.
The Church is making some very serious claims. If they are true, they're potentially the most wonderful news that the world could hear: God *does* exist, is actively involved in human affairs, and really does have a plan to take care of us and give everything meaning.
If they're not true -- well, then, they're not true, and accepting them as such is a kind of idolatry.
It behooves us, then, to strive as seriously and as thoroughly as we can to find out whether those claims are true, or not. It follows that there is no room here for sloppy thinking, moral cowardice, exaggerated allegiance to received traditions, and so on.
(cont. below)
Sir, that's *exactly* what I'm doing.
Our God is a God of truth, and cannot lie. Also, as Peter said, we ought to obey God rather than men. I want to be on the true God's side.
The Church is making some very serious claims. If they are true, they're potentially the most wonderful news that the world could hear: God *does* exist, is actively involved in human affairs, and really does have a plan to take care of us and give everything meaning.
If they're not true -- well, then, they're not true, and accepting them as such is a kind of idolatry.
It behooves us, then, to strive as seriously and as thoroughly as we can to find out whether those claims are true, or not. It follows that there is no room here for sloppy thinking, moral cowardice, exaggerated allegiance to received traditions, and so on.
(cont. below)
Thomas | 1:51 p.m. Oct. 25, 2007
(cont. from above)
I've been trying to become convinced that the Book of Mormon is what it says it is for at least 25 years, during which time I've done everything that is supposed to yield a knowledge that the book is true.
Why didn't I give up, long ago, when my first few readings and ponderings and prayings didn't result in any spiritual confirmation that the book was true? Probably because my DNA is Mormon -- and because so many people whom I deeply respect have reported spiritual experiences that they describe as an infallible confirmation that the book is true. I haven't had any such experience, but I've always held open the possibility that I might, someday.
The main problem is that I still haven't had any such experience. If I had, it could overshadow a huge amount of contrary evidence; otherwise, the rational evidence is all I have. And it frankly doesn't look too good at the moment. The arguments in defense of the Book of Mormon's historicity that I see on these boards don't fill me with much confidence. And Conference talks attacking the credibility of science don't suggest that things are going well.
I've been trying to become convinced that the Book of Mormon is what it says it is for at least 25 years, during which time I've done everything that is supposed to yield a knowledge that the book is true.
Why didn't I give up, long ago, when my first few readings and ponderings and prayings didn't result in any spiritual confirmation that the book was true? Probably because my DNA is Mormon -- and because so many people whom I deeply respect have reported spiritual experiences that they describe as an infallible confirmation that the book is true. I haven't had any such experience, but I've always held open the possibility that I might, someday.
The main problem is that I still haven't had any such experience. If I had, it could overshadow a huge amount of contrary evidence; otherwise, the rational evidence is all I have. And it frankly doesn't look too good at the moment. The arguments in defense of the Book of Mormon's historicity that I see on these boards don't fill me with much confidence. And Conference talks attacking the credibility of science don't suggest that things are going well.
Tyrone | 1:53 p.m. Oct. 25, 2007
Why do Mormons always fall back on "Joseph Smith was an uneducated farmer,
there's no way he could have written the book, so therefore it's
true"?
Doesn't that same logic mean that Muhammad, a poor uneducated shepard, could have never produced something so beautiful and powerful as the Koran, so therefore the Koran is true?
Just asking.
Doesn't that same logic mean that Muhammad, a poor uneducated shepard, could have never produced something so beautiful and powerful as the Koran, so therefore the Koran is true?
Just asking.
How God Works | 2:00 p.m. Oct. 25, 2007
You all miss the point. The Bible says that faith is the substance of things
hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. If God allowed the concrete proof
of a spiritual guide you would be dammed because your knowledge of
God�s existence would become sure. You would thus loose
enmity and the right to have Christ atone for your sins.
We do the same in our society. A person with knowledge has more accountability than a person with less knowledgeable. There are many legal examples. One such example is knowingly contributing to a death vs negligent homicide.
If our scientist conclusively linked Native American DNA to the Hebrew�s, wouldn�t the validity of the BOM be proven? If so, then our knowledge concerning its truthfulness would be whole and the existence of God confirmed. We no longer would need faith.
Southerton proved God loves us enough to keep us from damming ourselves to Hell.
We do the same in our society. A person with knowledge has more accountability than a person with less knowledgeable. There are many legal examples. One such example is knowingly contributing to a death vs negligent homicide.
If our scientist conclusively linked Native American DNA to the Hebrew�s, wouldn�t the validity of the BOM be proven? If so, then our knowledge concerning its truthfulness would be whole and the existence of God confirmed. We no longer would need faith.
Southerton proved God loves us enough to keep us from damming ourselves to Hell.
note to Deseret News | 2:03 p.m. Oct. 25, 2007
The comment page for this board has stopped at 10:31 Oct 25, 2007. Nothing
since then has been posted.
WoW! | 2:19 p.m. Oct. 25, 2007
never the less, it seems to me if a people can give you the book ..how come you
have so much resistance against the illegals..many missionaries went to their
countries with the good news and the people listened , followed them back here
to utah and contributed greatly but now it as if we don't count! That seems
to be the real curse!
John Harvey | 2:24 p.m. Oct. 25, 2007
All truth is suppose to be consistent - that is a somewhat unique (when looking
at religion in general) LDS core belief; that's why so many LDS Church
members care about whether science (of whatever type) matches up with what they
are taught.
Science can only (in the best case) strongly confirm the likelihood or non-likelihood of a given hypothesis. By keeping track of which hypotheses are shown to be good predictors of subsequent events scientific theory advances. Most of what we identify as our current civilization is due to scientific progress.
Science (of any type) will not be able to prove or dis-prove whether the LDS Church is what it claims to be. Everyone must eventually make their own judgment on that issue. The only "witness" available is God (assuming you believe in God). If you are not willing to ask, or listen to, God about the claim then you are left to your own conclusions.
John Harvey
Science can only (in the best case) strongly confirm the likelihood or non-likelihood of a given hypothesis. By keeping track of which hypotheses are shown to be good predictors of subsequent events scientific theory advances. Most of what we identify as our current civilization is due to scientific progress.
Science (of any type) will not be able to prove or dis-prove whether the LDS Church is what it claims to be. Everyone must eventually make their own judgment on that issue. The only "witness" available is God (assuming you believe in God). If you are not willing to ask, or listen to, God about the claim then you are left to your own conclusions.
John Harvey
Ned | 2:42 p.m. Oct. 25, 2007
To TYLER: just thought I would clarify. "Wondering" was just saying
that if the LDS church and people had the truth and the anwsers for life then
they probably wouldn't suffer from the same problems the rest of society
has. But the LDS divorce rate and bankruptcy rate etc. etc. are the same as the
rest of the nation. That's allhe was trying to say.
Anonymous | 2:54 p.m. Oct. 25, 2007
Thomas wrote - Oops -- make that "Judah and Manasseh both descended from Jacob." "
Judah was his son; Manasseh his grandson. Either way, both of them (and their descendants) are descendants of Jacob, and would be expected to have common genes inherited from Jacob."
I thought we were talking mitochondrial DNA(mother)?
Yes read deeper and you'll find that Joseph had a different
1.mother
2.married a non-Israelite(pharoah's daughter)(What nation was the mother in law from?Kings throughout the ages married daughters of kings of other nations to form aliances/treaties.)
3.Who did Manasseh marry?What tribe/nation's genes are mixed into her DNA?*How much intermarraige went on w/in a specific tribe to cause what DNA traits to become dominant/recessive?
4.Proselytes(converts.Adopted into Israel.)came into the mix. *See above
5.What tribe was Sariah, Lehi's wife? *See above
6.Laman/Lemuel married Ishmael's daughters. The name Ishmael is more likely Arab(Covert?). What DNA did they bring with them? Once they split off from Nephites.They intermarried till the cows came home. *See above.
Once the BOM narrative ends we don't what other mitochondrial DNA is added to the mix?
So you point about Jacob being the Father/Grandfather while true doesn't make your point valid!
Jewish DNA? Read story!
mitochondrial DNA
Anon | 4:12 p.m. Oct. 25, 2007
I guess at the very least this long list of comments refutes Mr. Gardner's
comment that DNA is a non-issue.
mg | 4:13 p.m. Oct. 25, 2007
a while back i came across an interesting website put out by the Hope of Israel
Ministries (not affiliated with the LDS church) called "The Saga of Ancient
Hebrew Explorers" and their exploration into the idea of "who
discovered america first?"
It is an interesting read. They have found a lot of interesting evidences which they feel suggest that ancient Hebrew peoples did infact come to the americas thousands of years ago.
How this all ties into the Book of Mormon and whether it would prove or disprove, I don't care. I guess it could do either (prove or disprove) depending on your perspective--how you choose to read it. At any rate, neither group can really convince the other when it does not want to be convinced. Furthermore individuals in either group can and will be convinced to join the other if they are willing to be convinced.
It is an interesting read. They have found a lot of interesting evidences which they feel suggest that ancient Hebrew peoples did infact come to the americas thousands of years ago.
How this all ties into the Book of Mormon and whether it would prove or disprove, I don't care. I guess it could do either (prove or disprove) depending on your perspective--how you choose to read it. At any rate, neither group can really convince the other when it does not want to be convinced. Furthermore individuals in either group can and will be convinced to join the other if they are willing to be convinced.
THEDOCTRINEISTRUE.... | 4:29 p.m. Oct. 25, 2007
In Brigham Young's day the debate went on...and B.Y. with his logic and
faith declared about the Joseph Smith controversy, when considering the problem
people were having with him, "THE DOCTRINE IS TRUE". He knew Joseph
Smith to the core.
That is the simple truth about the Book of Mormon,
'THE DOCTRINE IS TRUE'. So Brigham Young had no problems to distract him from his inspired work of building up the Latter Day Kingdom of God.
Quoted Jesus Christ.."A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign".
That is the simple truth about the Book of Mormon,
'THE DOCTRINE IS TRUE'. So Brigham Young had no problems to distract him from his inspired work of building up the Latter Day Kingdom of God.
Quoted Jesus Christ.."A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign".
Dave | 4:49 p.m. Oct. 25, 2007
Before bashing Gardner it would be good to know more information.
He has a masters in anthropology from State Univ, Albany New York and also has completed course work for a PhD in anthropology
He has a masters in anthropology from State Univ, Albany New York and also has completed course work for a PhD in anthropology
Truth Sometimes Hurts | 4:58 p.m. Oct. 25, 2007
So many people have spoken of "anti-mormons" on here, but I think
mostly the problem is that "truth hurts". I know the things I've
spoken are facts:
I spoke of billions of people vs. 13 million people and I said that "not everyone will agree"
Those are facts. If you want to believe certain things even if you believe "everyone will know" in heaven stuff that's up to you. It is not a fact.
Be aware however, that other religions may think similar things about their religion and that they don't want to know.
I once heard a joke about a group of people huddled together in heaven. Some asked "who are they?" the reply was "oh, those are the Mormons...they think they're the only ones here."
Bless All
I spoke of billions of people vs. 13 million people and I said that "not everyone will agree"
Those are facts. If you want to believe certain things even if you believe "everyone will know" in heaven stuff that's up to you. It is not a fact.
Be aware however, that other religions may think similar things about their religion and that they don't want to know.
I once heard a joke about a group of people huddled together in heaven. Some asked "who are they?" the reply was "oh, those are the Mormons...they think they're the only ones here."
Bless All
Time of Christ | 7:42 p.m. Oct. 25, 2007
I wonder what the science was at the time of Christ that the Jews used to
"prove" that Christ wasn't who he said he was. Missing out on
recognizing the son of God when he is standing next to you is kind of a biggie.
I am sure that Herods experts had all sorts of proof that Christ wasn't who
he said he was. Science says that the miracles he performed are not logical.
Who can prove that the bread and fish thing really happened? If you believe in
Christ but choose not to believe in the Book of Mormon due to some scientific
finding you may be like some folks who believed in the coming of Christ but
missed him when he was standing next to them.
sb | 10:55 p.m. Oct. 25, 2007
To MG: Thank you. If anything, it gave me something interesting to look up.
big boys rule | 5:51 a.m. Oct. 26, 2007
You have to understand that the indoctrination process Mormon people have been
raised with is quite concise. The term "free agency" is bandied about,
but if one dare entertain the notion that Smith may have been making the whole
thing up, the Devil must be at work on your mind. (an external thing)
With all formal religions, it is always "the big boys" in charge who have everything to gain.
With all formal religions, it is always "the big boys" in charge who have everything to gain.
BA Christians in glass..... | 9:31 a.m. Oct. 26, 2007
BA Christians in glass houses shouldn't throw out "DNA trumps the BOM
truth" rocks.
Isn't DNA scientist's basic premise that the evidence speak of an old earth(4-6 billion yrs?)? The Asians that they are saying the AI are decended from came across a land bridge 10,000 to 15,000 years ago!
Ultimely they say they can show that man has a close relative in primates like Gibbons, etc. until to the "Genesis" they preach...Life came out of primordial soup several hundred millions years ago w/o any help from God.
Can you say layers of complex above layers of rock embedded with "simple" life forms? Proof?
I've read posts by Contributors that are Christian?
Are they going to say that they believe DNA science as far as it's translated correctly? It's science? It's logical?
Are Southerton, a former LDS bishop, Thomas Murphy BA Christians?
The inerrent Bible(Isa. 11: 12)preaches that Judah is dispersed across the four corners(Whole world?)of the earth!
If DNA evidence that there isn't any Jewish DNA in the AI just as damning to Bible as it is to BOM? Really?
Maybe the J&S Tanner better join the fray on our side!
Isn't DNA scientist's basic premise that the evidence speak of an old earth(4-6 billion yrs?)? The Asians that they are saying the AI are decended from came across a land bridge 10,000 to 15,000 years ago!
Ultimely they say they can show that man has a close relative in primates like Gibbons, etc. until to the "Genesis" they preach...Life came out of primordial soup several hundred millions years ago w/o any help from God.
Can you say layers of complex above layers of rock embedded with "simple" life forms? Proof?
I've read posts by Contributors that are Christian?
Are they going to say that they believe DNA science as far as it's translated correctly? It's science? It's logical?
Are Southerton, a former LDS bishop, Thomas Murphy BA Christians?
The inerrent Bible(Isa. 11: 12)preaches that Judah is dispersed across the four corners(Whole world?)of the earth!
If DNA evidence that there isn't any Jewish DNA in the AI just as damning to Bible as it is to BOM? Really?
Maybe the J&S Tanner better join the fray on our side!
Anonymous | 9:41 a.m. Oct. 26, 2007
Anthropologist are not biologists. Jokes are usually not true and mitochondrial
DNA can't tell the geographical origin of the woman whose DNA it is.
Mitochondrial DNA can tell you that two people have a common ancestor and where each resided at a certain point, but not 2600 years back. Mitochondrial DNA does not take into account the father.
This is really simple basic logic. It doesn't require an expert to figure it out.
If one believes in the Bible, they believe that the black race came through the flood through Ham's wife. Most blacks on the earth today live in Africa. However,there are blacks in almost all countries of the earth. Anyone that believes that all blacks originated from Africa would be considered a fool. Anyone who believes that there are any blacks who have no white blood are equally foolish and short sighted. The Bible and fathers would have to be totally discounted for that to be true.
The Book of Mormon talks of multiple migrations both to and from the American continent all involving women. The Bible tell us that Jerusalem was destroyed and the inhabitants were destroyed or taken into Babylonian captivity with Zedekiah after Lehi left.
Mitochondrial DNA can tell you that two people have a common ancestor and where each resided at a certain point, but not 2600 years back. Mitochondrial DNA does not take into account the father.
This is really simple basic logic. It doesn't require an expert to figure it out.
If one believes in the Bible, they believe that the black race came through the flood through Ham's wife. Most blacks on the earth today live in Africa. However,there are blacks in almost all countries of the earth. Anyone that believes that all blacks originated from Africa would be considered a fool. Anyone who believes that there are any blacks who have no white blood are equally foolish and short sighted. The Bible and fathers would have to be totally discounted for that to be true.
The Book of Mormon talks of multiple migrations both to and from the American continent all involving women. The Bible tell us that Jerusalem was destroyed and the inhabitants were destroyed or taken into Babylonian captivity with Zedekiah after Lehi left.
You read and understood just fin | 12:53 p.m. Oct. 26, 2007
re:Aint ya learned to read | 1:27 p.m. Oct. 25, 2007
"Huh?
Yeah, just throw stuff on the wall a see what sticks.
I never learned to read incoherance... "
I wrote my response to: to: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."
To the mocking tone of Derek Marlowe's - "Can't argue with them there non-facts."
I wrote - "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!"
No facts just farce on his part.
My response is apropriate in kind.
My incoherence for his incoherence.
You read the incoherence and understood
it just fine.
What about the rest of the post?
"Huh?
Yeah, just throw stuff on the wall a see what sticks.
I never learned to read incoherance... "
I wrote my response to: to: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."
To the mocking tone of Derek Marlowe's - "Can't argue with them there non-facts."
I wrote - "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!"
No facts just farce on his part.
My response is apropriate in kind.
My incoherence for his incoherence.
You read the incoherence and understood
it just fine.
What about the rest of the post?
Anonymous | 12:55 p.m. Oct. 26, 2007
I am going to write but this one comment. It saddens me to hear so many say
they have read the Book Of Mormon and do not believe it. It also saddens me to
hear so many say the book is not true. No matter what scientists say they have
discovered can be disputed by 4 or 5 other scientists. I know the Book of
Mormon is a Book of God. It is ancient scripture written by ancient prophets.
It was translated by Joseph Smith a prophet of God. I know this, This is not
just my belief it is my life. God lives, he is as real as any of us. I have
come to know him more by reading this book then could every be possible by
reading any other book.
We never said | 12:59 p.m. Oct. 26, 2007
To Ned | 2:42 p.m. Oct. 25, 2007
To TYLER: wrote - "just thought I would clarify. "Wondering" was just saying that if the LDS church and people had the truth and the anwsers for life then they probably wouldn't suffer from the same problems the rest of society has. But the LDS divorce rate and bankruptcy rate etc. etc. are the same as the rest of the nation. That's allhe was trying to say. "
We never said we were perfect...Just trying to be with God's guidance through prophets, and to the best of our ability. Guess what we fall short.
To TYLER: wrote - "just thought I would clarify. "Wondering" was just saying that if the LDS church and people had the truth and the anwsers for life then they probably wouldn't suffer from the same problems the rest of society has. But the LDS divorce rate and bankruptcy rate etc. etc. are the same as the rest of the nation. That's allhe was trying to say. "
We never said we were perfect...Just trying to be with God's guidance through prophets, and to the best of our ability. Guess what we fall short.
CdnThinker | 2:37 p.m. Oct. 26, 2007
To Anonymous - DNA researchers ARE able to identify the region from which the
ancestors of certain peoples (e.g., Native American tribes) came. Dr. Southerton
discusses how they do so in his excellent book, "Losing A Lost Tribe:
Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church�.
The Wikipedia entry about mitochondrial DNA states: "Unlike nuclear DNA, which is inherited from both parents and in which genes are rearranged in the process of recombination, there is usually no change in mtDNA from parent to offspring. Although mtDNA also recombines, it does so with copies of itself within the same mitochondrion. Because of this and because the mutation rate of animal mtDNA is higher than that of nuclear DNA, mtDNA is a powerful tool for tracking ancestry through females (matrilineage) and has been used in this role to track the ancestry of many species back hundreds of generations."
There are no scientists who dispute the fact that indigenous groups from northeast Asia migrated to North America several millenia ago and subsequently spread through the Western Hemisphere and became the ancestors of American Indians. Contact the Anthropology department of several universities to inquire yourself.
Feelings are not an infallible guide to the truth.
The Wikipedia entry about mitochondrial DNA states: "Unlike nuclear DNA, which is inherited from both parents and in which genes are rearranged in the process of recombination, there is usually no change in mtDNA from parent to offspring. Although mtDNA also recombines, it does so with copies of itself within the same mitochondrion. Because of this and because the mutation rate of animal mtDNA is higher than that of nuclear DNA, mtDNA is a powerful tool for tracking ancestry through females (matrilineage) and has been used in this role to track the ancestry of many species back hundreds of generations."
There are no scientists who dispute the fact that indigenous groups from northeast Asia migrated to North America several millenia ago and subsequently spread through the Western Hemisphere and became the ancestors of American Indians. Contact the Anthropology department of several universities to inquire yourself.
Feelings are not an infallible guide to the truth.
East Coast | 3:03 p.m. Oct. 26, 2007
One thing that I find strange in this debate is the lack of understanding of
native Americans and their extremely diverse culture and history. They are not
one cohesive group. They speak many different languages that are not connected
to each other.
For example, the Navajos speak an Athapaskan language. They came from the north.
The Hopis, who live right next to them, speak an Uto-Aztecan language. They came from the south.
There are 17 language groups containing close to 150 languages (including three groups simply called "other" containing a couple dozen unclassifiable languages).
I do not think this issue is as simple as everyone makes it out to be.
Have the authors typed every one of about 150 different groups among native Americans? Have they DNA typed every ethnic group in the Middle East to match the markers? There is not just one type of Native American. There is not just one type of Middle Easterner.
This is not a simple good vs. evil or faith vs. science debate. I won't get upset and have my faith overturned because my faith is not based on either science or "science."
For example, the Navajos speak an Athapaskan language. They came from the north.
The Hopis, who live right next to them, speak an Uto-Aztecan language. They came from the south.
There are 17 language groups containing close to 150 languages (including three groups simply called "other" containing a couple dozen unclassifiable languages).
I do not think this issue is as simple as everyone makes it out to be.
Have the authors typed every one of about 150 different groups among native Americans? Have they DNA typed every ethnic group in the Middle East to match the markers? There is not just one type of Native American. There is not just one type of Middle Easterner.
This is not a simple good vs. evil or faith vs. science debate. I won't get upset and have my faith overturned because my faith is not based on either science or "science."
Back to what I was doing | 3:12 p.m. Oct. 26, 2007
As I began to read these postings I became convinced that the Book of Mormon
must be true and decided to accept it. Then, I read further and determined that
it must not be true so I decided to reject it. Then I read further and decided
to accept it. Then I read further and decided to reject it. Then... I decided
to go get a tan. Then, I decided to go back to what I was doing before I got
captivated by all of the opinions and views expressed.
Anonymous | 4:09 p.m. Oct. 26, 2007
I am an outsider and non-Mormon, so I have not had the privilege of undergoing
the conditioning process that exists here.
Thomas | 4:33 p.m. Oct. 26, 2007
Anon 12:55: "No matter what scientists say they have discovered can be
disputed by 4 or 5 other scientists."
Right. For every scientist that says that gravity makes rocks fall to the ground when dropped, there are four scientists who say no, they fly straight up into the clouds.
Sheesh.
Right. For every scientist that says that gravity makes rocks fall to the ground when dropped, there are four scientists who say no, they fly straight up into the clouds.
Sheesh.
Sing "Feelings" | 6:36 p.m. Oct. 26, 2007
"Feelings Nothing more than feelings"
A scientist tells me w/o hesitation I can't tell the truth from feelings.
Is that something that you can put under a microscope, weigh, measure, really observe with 100% accuracy, etc.?
Aren't feelings subjective?
Isn't that beyond the power of any scientific instrument known to man?
How do you really observe feelings? Facial expressions,etc?You might be able to observe the after-effects on the body(Chemicals, etc.), but those aren't the feelings themselves.
How do you know that a subject you haven't tested before doesn't have the ability to do so?
Does your powerful intellect tell you so?
Is it wishful thinking on your part?
Have you ever been mistaken about something, anything in your life? You couldn't be so now about the ability to discern truth by a feeling?
Really aren't you out of your field of expertise(If you really are a scientist at all)? Is there a science devoted to measuring/quantifying actual feelings ability to discern truth(Isn't it really religion's job?)? Psycology-Nah?
So you shouldn't be saying with 100% certainty that it can't be done! Science can't/won't do it!
A scientist tells me w/o hesitation I can't tell the truth from feelings.
Is that something that you can put under a microscope, weigh, measure, really observe with 100% accuracy, etc.?
Aren't feelings subjective?
Isn't that beyond the power of any scientific instrument known to man?
How do you really observe feelings? Facial expressions,etc?You might be able to observe the after-effects on the body(Chemicals, etc.), but those aren't the feelings themselves.
How do you know that a subject you haven't tested before doesn't have the ability to do so?
Does your powerful intellect tell you so?
Is it wishful thinking on your part?
Have you ever been mistaken about something, anything in your life? You couldn't be so now about the ability to discern truth by a feeling?
Really aren't you out of your field of expertise(If you really are a scientist at all)? Is there a science devoted to measuring/quantifying actual feelings ability to discern truth(Isn't it really religion's job?)? Psycology-Nah?
So you shouldn't be saying with 100% certainty that it can't be done! Science can't/won't do it!
Your "Truth", My "Truth" | 5:55 a.m. Oct. 27, 2007
It will never be the same. Enjoy yours and I will enjoy mine. My truth is not
literal...yours is. Thanks for sharing, but no thanks.
BH | 9:07 a.m. Oct. 27, 2007
Gardner said: ""We're often trying to compare our traditions
versus science, but what does the Book of Mormon actually say? ... No matter how
many opinions someone might have about the Book of Mormon, if the opinion is
wrong, it's the opinion that's wrong and not the book."
So then ...if the opinion is wrong then the opinion is wrong?
well DUH!
Who is this genius?
So then ...if the opinion is wrong then the opinion is wrong?
well DUH!
Who is this genius?
me | 11:40 a.m. Oct. 27, 2007
Don't you people have anything else better to do?
Tim | 4:50 p.m. Oct. 27, 2007
Read "History of The Hebrews" and you might well see how JS got some
ideas. B.H. Roberts was "shocked" when he read the work. The book
was rather well know during JS's early teens and twenties.
JS used some glue (ideas) from others and pasted this and that with a fetile imagination. He certainly was a was a brilliant and creative man all his life.
JS used some glue (ideas) from others and pasted this and that with a fetile imagination. He certainly was a was a brilliant and creative man all his life.
Thanks Tim...Exactly | 5:13 p.m. Oct. 27, 2007
He was a "creative man". He was talented....I will give him that. If
we had a trial with evidence and everything I think we know which side would be
considered valid. I do know that not all things are or should be brought
"to trial", but still we can use this in our thinking.
I try and use a little "common sense" in everything. My sense is that if something can help you live a good life (and does not hurt others) go for it! If something hinders and/or hurts others in ways of exclusion, "elite" type thinking and arrogance, I do without it.
I try and use a little "common sense" in everything. My sense is that if something can help you live a good life (and does not hurt others) go for it! If something hinders and/or hurts others in ways of exclusion, "elite" type thinking and arrogance, I do without it.
Junior | 11:20 p.m. Oct. 27, 2007
It is only fitting that as science has matured over the past 250 years, to the
point of being capable of solid DNA analysis, that the question of the origins
of the American Indians should be explored using our best science.
The idea that the American Indians had their origins in Israel dates back as early as 1765 (Boudinot, 1816) or before, in America, England, and Denmark.
At least two relatively extensive books on the subject were available in New York and Vermont before 1828, and the provocative idea was extant in that region and in Europe (producing multiple editions of some of these books).
In these books and in the ideas they spawned are all the concepts, prophecies, scriptural supports, and claims that can be found in Joseph Smith's works and teachings. He added little (if anythig) that was new.
I'm afraid that science is destined to debunk yet another myth. Hold on; it will be a passionate battle between faith and science, as the comments here attest. But I think science has the better track record.
The idea that the American Indians had their origins in Israel dates back as early as 1765 (Boudinot, 1816) or before, in America, England, and Denmark.
At least two relatively extensive books on the subject were available in New York and Vermont before 1828, and the provocative idea was extant in that region and in Europe (producing multiple editions of some of these books).
In these books and in the ideas they spawned are all the concepts, prophecies, scriptural supports, and claims that can be found in Joseph Smith's works and teachings. He added little (if anythig) that was new.
I'm afraid that science is destined to debunk yet another myth. Hold on; it will be a passionate battle between faith and science, as the comments here attest. But I think science has the better track record.
Aspiring scientist w/TESTIMONY | 8:14 a.m. Oct. 28, 2007
There are many scientists with testimonies that have posted here. All these
postings are noteworthy. I would fancy myself being among their venerable
ranks. Their service to our nation, the world in general, and the improvements
upon the infrastructure of our lives and communities has been unrivaled for
millenia. Gratitude and appreciation are owing to many of these who have been
more in touch with the Spirit of Christ than many of ourselves and others of our
brethren who profess Christ and lay claim to His Gospel.
This new science MODEL I propose:
Let us not forget the source of all blessings nor those scientific tools that allow an even greater expression of appreciation and gratitude, yea, even a greater magnification of those powers of creation and accountability than hitherto had been possible.
It will come as no surprise to many who read these posts that science figures prominently in a certain model of faith that has been available since Adam. Namely, that doctrine of faith expounded by a very successful prophet called Alma. While faith precedes the miracle, so too are many if not all scientific hypotheses(sp), theories, principles, laws, and axioms thus derived. Faith lays dormant.
More later.
This new science MODEL I propose:
Let us not forget the source of all blessings nor those scientific tools that allow an even greater expression of appreciation and gratitude, yea, even a greater magnification of those powers of creation and accountability than hitherto had been possible.
It will come as no surprise to many who read these posts that science figures prominently in a certain model of faith that has been available since Adam. Namely, that doctrine of faith expounded by a very successful prophet called Alma. While faith precedes the miracle, so too are many if not all scientific hypotheses(sp), theories, principles, laws, and axioms thus derived. Faith lays dormant.
More later.
Wake-up | 9:54 p.m. Oct. 28, 2007
Right, on, Tim. B.H.Roberts revived LDS Historian, and respected on the
'outside' for his intellect, came to the conclusion that J.S. had a
very vivid imagination, and admitted to his plagerism of the "View of
Hebrews"...word for word in many places.
I'd be interested in the average age of the people defending the BoM...I can't get over the ignorance of young mormons and their blind acceptance in this day and age. Is it fear, or just plain laziness?
I'd be interested in the average age of the people defending the BoM...I can't get over the ignorance of young mormons and their blind acceptance in this day and age. Is it fear, or just plain laziness?
mchasetherapist again | 10:09 p.m. Oct. 28, 2007
I've been thinking for sometime on this article. Since the DNA tracers are
from the female line and Laman and Lemual's seed are the ones who are
supposed to have been preserved, it just seems that DNA tester's need to
find a male marker, which I'm sure they've tried and keep trying to do
or we may never really be able to tell who the Lamanites are or the remnant of
Jacob until the time the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints needs to
call upon a work force to be in charge of building the New Jerusalem. Then, DNA
or not, the remnants will be known. Maybe it's God's secret, although
I'm sure he hasn't left the prophet in the dark.
I was told 25 years ago as a missionary that one authority at the general level had a spiritual feeling while in the Midwest that the Lord was going to send tornadoes so large they would wipe out entire towns and a tornado would go through New York City. Seems like that happened this past summer.
I believe the teachings that a remnant of Jacob will come forth--DNA proven or not.
I was told 25 years ago as a missionary that one authority at the general level had a spiritual feeling while in the Midwest that the Lord was going to send tornadoes so large they would wipe out entire towns and a tornado would go through New York City. Seems like that happened this past summer.
I believe the teachings that a remnant of Jacob will come forth--DNA proven or not.
Anonymous | 9:51 p.m. Oct. 30, 2007
To Junior
Yes, and perhaps the Utah Mormons should be told that the world is not flat anymore!
Yes, and perhaps the Utah Mormons should be told that the world is not flat anymore!
Dawn of the living | 7:54 p.m. Nov. 13, 2007
Let's do what the English have always done... Dig it up today and rebury it
tomorrow. It a good way to check out everyones DNA. That includes pioneer people
too. They need to start with those lost souls and their remains in "This Is
The Place Heritage park" in SLC. We would really like to know who those
pioneer bones belong too. Everyone wants to know who we are and who we have
descended down from. Ancestry.com is trying to fit DNA to many people and put
the pieces together. It's all quite interesting.
The basics prove it | 11:08 p.m. Jan. 6, 2008
If anybody can duplicate a work like the BOM then I would eat cat food. It
takes months to traslate the book into different languages using modern
technology. The BOM is way too complicated for any group of educated people to
come up with in years of work. No way could JS have put it together. Christ
came in a way that puzzled most. Even the most righteous couldn't realize
that he was the Messiah. We have a similar situation here, those who are looking
for truth in the BOM will find it. Those who saw Christ healing on the Sabbath
saw him as a sinner. Those who look at the BOM as a lie won't see the
truth. God works this way folks. He only seeks after those who are honest in
heart and are seeking the truth. Look at the humble circumstances that Christ
came into the world. JS was in similar circumstances and that folks is how the
Gospel was restored. That is the way God works. JS was a Prophet of God! Open
your eyes!!!
James | 1:04 p.m. March 29, 2008
"The basics prove it"?
Then start eating your friskies now.
I can "duplicate" it with a copy machine.
Okay, I get the point you are trying to make...but you still have to eat your kibbles.
Using your logic, since the bible and other holy works came before the BOM, then the BOM is a "duplicate"....and all the words in all the holy books are written by man, too. If you are seeking mystery and supernatural, you will find it...even if you have to mix a little logic with some legend and a little self-brainwashing...and a great leap of faith or two.
Then start eating your friskies now.
I can "duplicate" it with a copy machine.
Okay, I get the point you are trying to make...but you still have to eat your kibbles.
Using your logic, since the bible and other holy works came before the BOM, then the BOM is a "duplicate"....and all the words in all the holy books are written by man, too. If you are seeking mystery and supernatural, you will find it...even if you have to mix a little logic with some legend and a little self-brainwashing...and a great leap of faith or two.
Elias | 10:54 a.m. Sept. 22, 2008
Evidence like this is not what gives you a testamony against or for the Book of
Mormon. The Mormon Church emphasizes prayer to God, who knows all. In fact,
almost all churches emphasize that. So is that what we should do?
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.
- Snow may fly with weekend warm-up 4:46 p.m.
- 'Half-Blood Prince' on DVD 4:40 p.m.
- Traditional animation for 'Princess' 4:35 p.m.
- Defense witness goes on offensive 4:28 p.m.
- Push Play pushes its music 4:26 p.m.
- DVDs help create Christmas warmth 4:20 p.m.
- Holiday album fun for Archuleta 4:17 p.m.
- Dining out: China House 4:11 p.m.
- New Christmas CDs this season 4:10 p.m.
- '09 trying for Obama; Dems fret '10 4:00 p.m.
- Nude bathers cited for lewdness
- Few details on missing W.V. mom
- Crash landing next to I-15
- Jazz fall apart late at L.A.
- Palin signs books, chats with fans
- I-15 expansion barreling south
- BCS = power conference monopoly
- Y.'s Emery bruised, but rarely beaten
- Mutated version of H1N1 found
- Utes crash the glass to get big win
- Letters: Global warming a lie
254 - TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl206
- BYU football: Bronco weighs in on Hall192
- Palin signs books, chats with fans151
- Cougars going back to Vegas150
- Utah/BYU rivalry can be more civil148
- Andersen apologizes for Jordan hoax142
- Max Hall wants to look ahead123
- Nude bathers cited for lewdness110
- Revive full food tax?105
There was a time when free shipping was rare. This holiday season, you...
Love him or hate him, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch knows how to get attention.
My wife Lisa and I would prefer never to argue. But that's not going to...
Latest comments
you rather have poison than hurt profits right. kill someone else's future to...
I seriously cannot believe how short-sighted you are. How can you jump to...
Palin believes earth is 5000 years old. Most Utahns will attest to her...
He would not get drafted. He would get picked up as a free agent and not...
Outraged, if you believe getting buck-nekkid, in mixed company, in a public...
They do NOT know if it is really an ancestor, the are ASSUMING it,...
"Mitchell asked staff members about the conversion rate of shekels to U.S....
I'm glad he'll be eliciting the advice from some professionals rather than us...
Barney Fife would be proud of these sheriff's deputies. The rest of us are...
Who should we be bullying? Do we really need to specify people that should...
Advertisements
First it was Harry Reid, now this.