Reader comments
Intro change in Book of Mormon spurs discussion
245 comments | Read story
Also on the Title Page | 11:40 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
"... if there are faults they are mistakes of man; wherefor condemn not the
things of God..."
Tiger | 11:46 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
Wow! Religious intolerance is alive and well in Utah. If the Catholics,
Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Buddists or any other religion changed a word or
two in the preface to their book of doctrine would we see such an outpouring of
religious intolerance as we see on a regular basis when the Mormons are
involved. Of course not. It's just the Mormons that are the brunt of
religious intolerance in this fair city and state.
Find something else to expend your unpleasant energies on and do something worthwhile that doesn't involve spewing vindictive, hateful words, and intolerant attitudes. Put your efforts into helping the homeless, keeping the streets clean, driving courteously, being an organ donor, tutoring someone who needs help with their schoolwork, etc.
I get the feeling that some of you hate yourself and life so much that you just have to attack anything that is good to justify your misery.
Leave it alone and move on. It must be pretty draining to feel so much distain for others and what they believe.
Find something else to expend your unpleasant energies on and do something worthwhile that doesn't involve spewing vindictive, hateful words, and intolerant attitudes. Put your efforts into helping the homeless, keeping the streets clean, driving courteously, being an organ donor, tutoring someone who needs help with their schoolwork, etc.
I get the feeling that some of you hate yourself and life so much that you just have to attack anything that is good to justify your misery.
Leave it alone and move on. It must be pretty draining to feel so much distain for others and what they believe.
Comments continue below
utahrose | 11:47 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
I find it interesting that most Mormons do not seem to know that MANY of the
scriptures have been changed. For instance, Joseph Smith originally said he saw
only one person in the sacred grove. It was later changed to two. There are
hundreds of other significant changes that were made throughout the years
(learned ALL this in a BYU church history class - I can't be the only one).
If you want to believe in your church, that's cool with me, it's as good as any other belief system. But be honest about your history, don't rewrite or hide historical documents, don't deny what mistakes have been made. It compromises your credibility and integrity.
If you want to believe in your church, that's cool with me, it's as good as any other belief system. But be honest about your history, don't rewrite or hide historical documents, don't deny what mistakes have been made. It compromises your credibility and integrity.
nada | 11:51 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
Why doesn't the prophet come out with a prophecy to clear up the whole
mess? Neither Joseph Smith nor Brigham Young would have shied away from setting
things straight.
Jerry | 11:52 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
I do not question the prophet or other church authorities. Clearly if you
can't believe in the BoM, you have not read it and got down on your knees
and prayed with a pricked heart. If you have done these things and still do not
believe it, something is terribly wrong with you, and I will be steering well
clear of you.
Reply to Huh? | 11:57 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
You're absolutely right. Now lets look at what you have to do before you
write your "Book of !Kung." Lets see: Have only a third grade
education, use no word processor- only a pen and paper, write a 531 page book in
80 days while being persecuted, tarred and feathered, losing children to the
abuse of mobbers, being kicked out of town, and have no money to print it once
completed. Oh, and lets not forget that the book can't be any story. It
must be very complex, with at least three different groups of people living at
any given time. All stories must coincide logically and historically. And,
because two other stories about Jesus are already written, yours must then in no
way contradict the other two, but supplement them. Then, your story must be
believed by many people, begin a rising religion, and ultimately become the
largest growing religion on the face of the earth. If you can do this, then yes
your "Book of !Kung" will be a great success as I forsee it. Let me
know as soon as you mortgage your house to pay for printing, because I want a
copy!
Abish | 11:58 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
The doctrine of the true gospel of Jesus Christ hasn't changed. That's
all that matters.
Sue | 11:57 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
For all of you posting here who are under the age of 40!! I'm in my
60's, born in the church, faithful member until a very few years ago. You
younger people have NO idea of what was taught to all of us growing up through
the 1900's about the Lamanites. Just to set the record straight, there was
"0" discussion that maybe ALL the Indians in N. and S. American might
NOT be Lamanites. I can "testify" to you (in spite of all your
apologetics) that the one and only true doctrine I EVER heard was that ALL the
darker-skinned people on these two continents and on many of the Pacific Islands
were direct descendants of the two migrations chronicled in the Book of Mormon,
and there was NO room in those teachings for the possibility that other
migrations had also taken place. If you don't want to believe that this
was the formal teachings of the church for over 170 years, so be it.
all i'm saying... | 11:58 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
where is the viking dna?
MADRYBEG | 12:00 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
I have read numerous comments. I have read both those who have thought
seriously on the subject presented and those who comment without thinking. This
observation is made from both sides of the fence, being objective to both sides.
Science vs. faith is a theme emerging and is a very good debate. Which is
it?
One cannot expect to understand spiritual matters by using human reasoning ONLY. It is impossible. Human resoning is important and should be used, but so should those thing that require faith, such as repentance and prayer to understand.
The Bible has been written, re-written, and then re-written yet again multiple times (even translated into our "everyday language" yet I have been scorned for believing in the Book of Mormon. The doctrine found within the Book of Mormon has not changed, as many would like to point out falsely. A title page? That "proves" the Book of Mormon to be false. Weak.
One cannot expect to understand spiritual matters by using human reasoning ONLY. It is impossible. Human resoning is important and should be used, but so should those thing that require faith, such as repentance and prayer to understand.
The Bible has been written, re-written, and then re-written yet again multiple times (even translated into our "everyday language" yet I have been scorned for believing in the Book of Mormon. The doctrine found within the Book of Mormon has not changed, as many would like to point out falsely. A title page? That "proves" the Book of Mormon to be false. Weak.
Curtis Blanco | 12:03 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
Just goes to show that LDS church leaders like most people, strive to do a good
job, but are not error free. (otherwise they wouldn't have to make this
change). I just wish people would remember this and not quote their every word
as if that is the last word that needs to be spoken on a given subject.
In other words, don't be afraid to think for yourself and don't be a blind sheep.
In other words, don't be afraid to think for yourself and don't be a blind sheep.
nottyou | 12:05 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
This is a whole carnival of idiots. "We claim the privilege of worshiping
Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men
the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." What
can I say?
PR nightmare | 12:05 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
Uh-oh!
I think somebody better come up with a revelation that will be acceptable to all.
And something a little more substantial than:
"These are the things predicted to happen in The Last Days."
I think somebody better come up with a revelation that will be acceptable to all.
And something a little more substantial than:
"These are the things predicted to happen in The Last Days."
to Onan | 12:21 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
Get a dictionary or a brain. "The principal" certainly does not mean
"the only one". It means the main one of many.
Second, the Introduction was not a translation.
None of your comments make any sense.
Second, the Introduction was not a translation.
None of your comments make any sense.
I have a question | 12:24 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
Several people above have referred to a statement..."by his own hand upon
papyrus." To what are you referring? Could someone who KNOWS please
clarify that for this LDS believer.
Anonymous | 12:25 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
Why get so excited about this? Within the next ten years the Church will drop
the claim that the Indians are the ancestors of the Lamanites altogether. They
will say the Lamanites died out and the American Indians are descendants of
Mongolian people just like the dna tests prove. The Church always plays a catch
up game. It's part of the business.
Point | 12:26 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
This wording change is one of thousands of examples of how so-called
"Anti-Mormons" are going to great lengths to research, document, and
publicize the faults, failings, sins, and problems with the LDS Church.
Mormons (for example, FARMS) defend themselves against such "anti-Mormon" attacks by a variety of arguments, the gist of which is that the Church is true despite errors and changes in scripture, imperfect leaders and members, problems and inconsistencies in theology, etc.
In order to justify why a "Restoration" was necessary, Mormons have gone to great lengths to research, document, and publicize the faults, failings, sins, and problems with the Christian Churches since Jesus' time (see "The Great Apostasy" among many many others).
Point: If the defenses Mormons offer against attacks on their Church are valid (if the Church really is "true" despite these problems), then why aren't those same "defenses" also valid for the Christian Churches Mormons attack?
In other words, why can't the original Church established by Christ also be "true" despite all the problems the Mormons have identified, thereby eliminating the need for a Restoration in the first place?
The foundation of the Mormon claim is inherently incoherent. I will continue to unravel.
Mormons (for example, FARMS) defend themselves against such "anti-Mormon" attacks by a variety of arguments, the gist of which is that the Church is true despite errors and changes in scripture, imperfect leaders and members, problems and inconsistencies in theology, etc.
In order to justify why a "Restoration" was necessary, Mormons have gone to great lengths to research, document, and publicize the faults, failings, sins, and problems with the Christian Churches since Jesus' time (see "The Great Apostasy" among many many others).
Point: If the defenses Mormons offer against attacks on their Church are valid (if the Church really is "true" despite these problems), then why aren't those same "defenses" also valid for the Christian Churches Mormons attack?
In other words, why can't the original Church established by Christ also be "true" despite all the problems the Mormons have identified, thereby eliminating the need for a Restoration in the first place?
The foundation of the Mormon claim is inherently incoherent. I will continue to unravel.
Unsure | 12:29 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
For me - this is not about a potential mistake by Bruce McKonkey. It is not
about whether the Book of Mormon is true. This is about the NUMEROUS statements
made by LDS prophets and apostles indicating BofM location and native american
anscestory that now seems refuted by both science and the scholarly branch of
the Church (FARMS, FAIR). It has become extremely difficult to know what is
prophecy versus opinion. And it seems any past statement that does not fit today
is simply placed into the opinion category while what still does fit is extolled
as prophecy or doctrine. I am very comfortable with the reinforcing testimony of
the Savior that can be gained from the BofM regardless of its historical
accuracy. Where I struggle is with the ever changing and questionable statements
issued by our leaders ever since Joseph Smith announced plural marriage to be
from God, the Garden of Eden to have been located in Missouri, common egyptian
funeral scrolls to contain the actual writing of Abraham...etc.etc.
Jacob | 12:29 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
Come now, let us reason together saith the Lord. I believe that we are all
entitled to our opinions but be reasonable. Joseph Smtih was not smart enough to
write a book of scripture and there was no real incentive for him to do it. If
you fail to agree with me, I don't really care, and I won't view you
any differently. Most of my friends are not Mormon and believe the book to be a
work of fiction. I can see why they think this and I respect their opinion. Let
us all be nice and understanding as Christ would want us to be.
Jerry | 12:29 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
No one knows more than me the profound effects of tithing. One needs to look no
further than my BYU to see just one example of our tithing dollars at work.
Faith vs Science | 12:36 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
There is no scientific basis for any religion that makes claims on God - none
whatsoever. So, the only people that can really bash Mormon's for being
ignorant or irrational in their beliefs without being hypocritical are athiests
and maybe agnostics.
Many mainstream christians are quick to attack the BoM as fiction with no historical basis but they don't seem to realize that objective historians and scientists pretty much say the same of most of the old testament. Yes, thats right, there is no independent historical basis for Moses and Noah, let alone Adam and Eve.
So that really makes the decision to believe or not to believe a personal decison based on personal experience - and that goes for any religion, Mormon, Christian, Muslim, etc.
For me personally I choose to believe and I'll be happier for it. A one word change on a preamble I'd long ago though of as incorrect won't change what I believe or my personal reasons for doing so.
Many mainstream christians are quick to attack the BoM as fiction with no historical basis but they don't seem to realize that objective historians and scientists pretty much say the same of most of the old testament. Yes, thats right, there is no independent historical basis for Moses and Noah, let alone Adam and Eve.
So that really makes the decision to believe or not to believe a personal decison based on personal experience - and that goes for any religion, Mormon, Christian, Muslim, etc.
For me personally I choose to believe and I'll be happier for it. A one word change on a preamble I'd long ago though of as incorrect won't change what I believe or my personal reasons for doing so.
Why I Care | 12:38 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
Someone above asked why non-mormons care what they believe. I care becuase I
live in the State of Utah that is HEAVILY influenced and controlled in places by
the church and that in turn affects my way of life.
Ken Baguley | 12:41 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
It's just as President Hinckley said,'They leave the church, but they
can't leave the church alone".
DNA | 12:46 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
I'm just saying... if the Lamanite's skin became darkened,
doesn't that imply that God altered their DNA? So, if it's not the
same as the non-cursed, white skinned Nephites/Hebrews... then that would make
sense! Or, am I missing something.
Jen | 12:48 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
I have lots of friends at church. I am currently active LDS and find the church
to be an excellent setting to develop friendships. I don't believe all of
the doctrine, but being mormon makes me a better person, and that is enough for
me. Pick a set of beliefs and go with it, but don't knock them down. All
religions have things wrong with them.
Too many false prophets | 12:49 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
I think the best thing to do at this point is to view the B of M and the Bible
as instruments for a better, fulfilling life - not as "gospel" or the
unquestioned "word of God" (the easiest thing in the world is to guilt
or frighten people).
There are just too many people in high places that thrive on their power of THEIR interpretation for you and me.
And ask yourself, who does their interpretation really benefit?
There are just too many people in high places that thrive on their power of THEIR interpretation for you and me.
And ask yourself, who does their interpretation really benefit?
Re: DNA | 12:50 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
You make a good point. But what about the link to Asians?
Tired | 12:54 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
blah blah blah blah blah!!!
When is everyone going to understand that the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon does not rest with scientific and historical fact? It rests with the confirmation of the Holy Ghost in your heart.
I know that it is true because of this witness that I have received. I am tired of all of this meaningless debate.
TO ALL NON-BELEIVERS AND ANTI-MORMONS: I issue a challenge to all of you. I want you to ask yourself two questions:Do I believe in God? and Do I believe that God answers prayers? If you have answered "Yes" to these two questions, I challenge you to read the Book of Mormon with an open heart and test the SPIRITUAL waters. Then, when you have read it, EXCERSIZE (is that spelled right?) your faith in God and prayer and ASK GOD if the Book of Mormon is true. Only God can tell you whether it is or not. "Blessed art thou, Simon. For man hath not told thee, but my Father in Heaven...."
Then, AND ONLY THEN, can one say it is true.
When is everyone going to understand that the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon does not rest with scientific and historical fact? It rests with the confirmation of the Holy Ghost in your heart.
I know that it is true because of this witness that I have received. I am tired of all of this meaningless debate.
TO ALL NON-BELEIVERS AND ANTI-MORMONS: I issue a challenge to all of you. I want you to ask yourself two questions:Do I believe in God? and Do I believe that God answers prayers? If you have answered "Yes" to these two questions, I challenge you to read the Book of Mormon with an open heart and test the SPIRITUAL waters. Then, when you have read it, EXCERSIZE (is that spelled right?) your faith in God and prayer and ASK GOD if the Book of Mormon is true. Only God can tell you whether it is or not. "Blessed art thou, Simon. For man hath not told thee, but my Father in Heaven...."
Then, AND ONLY THEN, can one say it is true.
nada | 12:53 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
Joseph Smith and every leader right up intil today claim that the BOM was
translated directly thru the divine power of god and that it contains PURE and
CORRECT doctrine. Here's a look at an infintesmal sample of the
approximately 4,000 changes which have been implemented to the BOM since Joseph
Smith first "translated" the "most correct book on
earth".
Benjamin changed to Mosiah. - Mosiah 21:28 and Ether 4:1
Directors changed to interpreters - Alma 37:21, 24
White changed to pure (pertains to change in skin color) - 2 Nephi 30:6
Mother of God changed to Mother of the Son of God. - 1 Nephi 11:18
The Eternal Father changed to Son of the Eternal Father - 1 Nephite 11:21, 32, 13:40
The everlasting God changed to Son of the everlasting God - 1 Nephi 11:32
Preparator (in 1830 edition) changed to foundation (at least in the 1908, 1920, 1948, 1961 editions, probably others) and then back to Preparator (1981 edition). - 1 Nephi 15:35
Benjamin changed to Mosiah. - Mosiah 21:28 and Ether 4:1
Directors changed to interpreters - Alma 37:21, 24
White changed to pure (pertains to change in skin color) - 2 Nephi 30:6
Mother of God changed to Mother of the Son of God. - 1 Nephi 11:18
The Eternal Father changed to Son of the Eternal Father - 1 Nephite 11:21, 32, 13:40
The everlasting God changed to Son of the everlasting God - 1 Nephi 11:32
Preparator (in 1830 edition) changed to foundation (at least in the 1908, 1920, 1948, 1961 editions, probably others) and then back to Preparator (1981 edition). - 1 Nephi 15:35
Matt | 12:56 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
It's not a matter of a "small change" in the "title
page" and not in the scripture part. The point that a lot of us are
missing is that when we were younger, the church taught us that the Native
Americans were decended from Lamanites. Period. Now it appears that this is
not the case. That means we were taught an untruth. Period.
get the timeline straight | 12:56 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
The person above needs to get Joseph's timeline in order. While all the
things he mentioned did happen, they did not happen while Joseph was translating
the Book of Mormon.
DNA | 12:58 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
Seems something happened to Asian DNA, African DNA, and every other race's
DNA between Eden and today, or we'd all be the same. At the very least,
I'd be taller and live longer with Adam DNA. Oh, well.
Jerry | 1:07 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
I amy not be able to spell, but I can feel the spirit burn in my Loins. Please
disregard any scientific and historical contradictions that reside in the BoM.
Just read it, feel the spirit, and ignore this contrary information. If you can
do that, you can be converted. Otherwise, you are just one of the
'others'.
It is true that other religions can also feel this spirit, but it is a different spirit, and not as good. Maybe just a mediumly good spirit.
It is true that other religions can also feel this spirit, but it is a different spirit, and not as good. Maybe just a mediumly good spirit.
blessing or curse? | 1:07 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
I hate to be the one to break this to you "Tired" -
but it's not just "non-believers" and "anti-mormons"
(and you really don't have to shout) that are posting on this rather interesting blog and questioning the truth (whatever that really is).
God must have cursed some with questioning minds I guess.
but it's not just "non-believers" and "anti-mormons"
(and you really don't have to shout) that are posting on this rather interesting blog and questioning the truth (whatever that really is).
God must have cursed some with questioning minds I guess.
to I have a question | 1:08 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
"By his own hand..." is a book about JS translation of the Book of
Abraham. It points out several reasons why the BoA couldn't possibly be a
true translation of papyri bought by the Church. An important one being that we
do have the ability to translate Egyptian heiroglyphs today, but not so much
back then. Though it was possible, it was still being sorted out. Anyway, it
doesn't match in any way what JS translated. It also points out JS made up
portions of the vignettes that accompany the text, which is true. There are
many, many inconsistencies with the coming about of the BoA that are stated in
the book and they are valid arguments. Again, just like the BoM, you must have
faith to believe it. If you have faith, then who cares what other people say. If
your faith is strong, read the book. It's really good. I am LDS and believe
both BoM and BoA. So there.
Duke | 1:08 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
Does one word that is not part of the scripture matter? No...it
doesn't...unless you want it to.
No unhallowed hand can stop this work from progressing, not even the Trib-anti's or the DN.
What a time-worthy story from 06'.
Like they say in Payson..."ain't it almost 2008? Or am I just wear'n my Wranglers, flannel shirt and mullet hair cut from 1987?"
No unhallowed hand can stop this work from progressing, not even the Trib-anti's or the DN.
What a time-worthy story from 06'.
Like they say in Payson..."ain't it almost 2008? Or am I just wear'n my Wranglers, flannel shirt and mullet hair cut from 1987?"
Daniel | 1:11 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
This big mess revolving around a single word is but another of the soon-to-be
forgotten waves against the Church and its doctrine. The Church went through all
kind of persecutions, lies and, worse of all, half-truths. Even if as someone
here has said the world is poking fun at us, that definitely wont stop the work.
mark | 1:12 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
bunch of moRons... I wonder if the original addition to the book in 1981 caused
this much of a stir. It was written by Bruce R Mconkie - not Joseph Smith - it
is not doctrine nor is it scripture. So they changed a word or they changed this
or that - do you know how many times the Bible has been changed? Get a grip...
Sandy Non-LDS | 1:21 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
Tired:
It does get quite old, doesn't it? Please enlighten me though...I, quite frankly, have read the BOM with what I believe to be the same "seeking" heart that I had when I came to a saving faith in Christ about 20 yrs ago. I sought as a sceptic to know if God was out there. I was sceptical about God, the Bible and who the Bible says Christ is. Ultimately, I came to faith because, in a large part, the Bible places and history line up with science. Frankly, I don't see the same standard even remotely being met by the BOM.
Now, does that mean that I am deceived? Was my heart not really open to the truth? There may come a day when God lifts the veil from my eyes...maybe not. Until that time there is simply WAT TOO MUCH about the origins of the LDS Church and its doctrines that simply ring untrue.
My LDS neighbors love my family no less than we love and care for them. Right now, we simply enjoy that genuine concern for one another and don't worry too much about who has it "right".
It does get quite old, doesn't it? Please enlighten me though...I, quite frankly, have read the BOM with what I believe to be the same "seeking" heart that I had when I came to a saving faith in Christ about 20 yrs ago. I sought as a sceptic to know if God was out there. I was sceptical about God, the Bible and who the Bible says Christ is. Ultimately, I came to faith because, in a large part, the Bible places and history line up with science. Frankly, I don't see the same standard even remotely being met by the BOM.
Now, does that mean that I am deceived? Was my heart not really open to the truth? There may come a day when God lifts the veil from my eyes...maybe not. Until that time there is simply WAT TOO MUCH about the origins of the LDS Church and its doctrines that simply ring untrue.
My LDS neighbors love my family no less than we love and care for them. Right now, we simply enjoy that genuine concern for one another and don't worry too much about who has it "right".
What's up with that? | 1:32 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
What is it about my LDS brothers (okay, some, not all) that when finished
whining about being persecuted from non-members, they feel they are being
persecuted from within?
For me, I am still wrestling with "The Talking Snake" and Adam giving birth (Woman coming from his rib)???
For me, I am still wrestling with "The Talking Snake" and Adam giving birth (Woman coming from his rib)???
Non LDS Utahn | 1:32 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
Tried reading the BOM once...didn't make much sense to me. I can't
imagine this little change making much difference. You get it or you
don't. Those that do, please keep it to yourself. Those of us that
don't get it don't want to. So quit the proselytizting...we'll be
just fine without it.
Double Huh? | 1:33 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
To Huh,
The point is simply that if Jesus is the Christ, then you can come to know of Him through the Bible or through the Book of Mormon, because both books are true scripture of Him. If you really come to know Jesus Christ, then you will recognize that both are valid testaments of Him.
Go ahead and write King Kung or whatever it was, because I will know by the gift of the Holy Spirit, which God promises to all, what truths may coincidentally be in your book and what more likely is false about Jesus--just as I know that the Bible is the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly, and the Book of Mormon is the word of God.
I'll be sure not to dismiss logic and rationale, now that you understand my argument, knowing logic and rationale has won out over your ignorance in this matter.
The point is simply that if Jesus is the Christ, then you can come to know of Him through the Bible or through the Book of Mormon, because both books are true scripture of Him. If you really come to know Jesus Christ, then you will recognize that both are valid testaments of Him.
Go ahead and write King Kung or whatever it was, because I will know by the gift of the Holy Spirit, which God promises to all, what truths may coincidentally be in your book and what more likely is false about Jesus--just as I know that the Bible is the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly, and the Book of Mormon is the word of God.
I'll be sure not to dismiss logic and rationale, now that you understand my argument, knowing logic and rationale has won out over your ignorance in this matter.
Jerry | 1:35 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
The only DNA that matters is spiritual DNA.
Thomas | 1:38 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
"DNA" at 12:58 --
Yes, something did happen to mankind's DNA since Eden (or whatever): Ordinarily, Y-chromosome DNA and mitochondrial DNA is passed unchanged from father or mother, respectively, to child. Once in a great while, though, there is a mutation in the DNA. A piece gets hooked up to the DNA molecule during reproduction in a way it's not supposed to. From that point on, the descendants of a person born with that mutation carry it themselves. That's how DNA genealogy works. If different people carry the same mutation, they are almost certainly descended from the same person.
Over time, these mutations accumulate in a population, with the result that each person is carrying a large number of these unique genes. DNA is valuable in criminology, because it's unlikely to the point of certainty that two people (other than twins) would have exactly the same DNA profile -- the same accumulation of unique genes from the exact same ancestors. Thus, if a murder suspect's DNA matches DNA material found at the crime scene -- string 'im up. It's a slam dunk.
(cont.)
Yes, something did happen to mankind's DNA since Eden (or whatever): Ordinarily, Y-chromosome DNA and mitochondrial DNA is passed unchanged from father or mother, respectively, to child. Once in a great while, though, there is a mutation in the DNA. A piece gets hooked up to the DNA molecule during reproduction in a way it's not supposed to. From that point on, the descendants of a person born with that mutation carry it themselves. That's how DNA genealogy works. If different people carry the same mutation, they are almost certainly descended from the same person.
Over time, these mutations accumulate in a population, with the result that each person is carrying a large number of these unique genes. DNA is valuable in criminology, because it's unlikely to the point of certainty that two people (other than twins) would have exactly the same DNA profile -- the same accumulation of unique genes from the exact same ancestors. Thus, if a murder suspect's DNA matches DNA material found at the crime scene -- string 'im up. It's a slam dunk.
(cont.)
Roc Doc | 1:39 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
Those cavalierly dismissing the Book of Mormon as fiction ought to pause before
they speak. Those who are Christians, how would you react to someone treating
the Bible the same way?
When 13 million people believe the Book of Mormon is true--and those numbers grow more every year than for any other Christian sect--that isn't so easy to dismiss, nor is it polite or reasonable to do so. The Book of Mormon is a factual record of actual people!
When 13 million people believe the Book of Mormon is true--and those numbers grow more every year than for any other Christian sect--that isn't so easy to dismiss, nor is it polite or reasonable to do so. The Book of Mormon is a factual record of actual people!
Thomas | 1:46 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
(cont.)
If two populations are descended from a common ancestor, their respective gene pools will have at least some of that common ancestor's unique genes. (It's possible that some of the unique genes may have experienced future mutations in successive generations -- but for *all* of them to have re-mutated, in *all* descendants, would be vanishingly unlikely.)
Thus, if modern Jews and the descendants of Lehi were both descended from Jacob (the most recent common ancestor, assuming -- against all likelihood -- that there was absolutely no intermarriage between people of different Israelite tribes), then both populations would carry at least some of the common unique genes. Jacob was only about 4,000 years back. The only common genes between the (large) numbers of aboriginal Americans and modern Jews sampled are from somebody a lot further back in time.
That's a major problem. I do not believe it can be honestly denied that DNA evidence is evidence that the Book of Mormon is not an ancient record. Whether this evidence rises to the level of "proof" is up to each person's judgment. There have been some ingenious speculative possibilities raised as to why Lehi's DNA might have disappeared from history.
(cont.)
If two populations are descended from a common ancestor, their respective gene pools will have at least some of that common ancestor's unique genes. (It's possible that some of the unique genes may have experienced future mutations in successive generations -- but for *all* of them to have re-mutated, in *all* descendants, would be vanishingly unlikely.)
Thus, if modern Jews and the descendants of Lehi were both descended from Jacob (the most recent common ancestor, assuming -- against all likelihood -- that there was absolutely no intermarriage between people of different Israelite tribes), then both populations would carry at least some of the common unique genes. Jacob was only about 4,000 years back. The only common genes between the (large) numbers of aboriginal Americans and modern Jews sampled are from somebody a lot further back in time.
That's a major problem. I do not believe it can be honestly denied that DNA evidence is evidence that the Book of Mormon is not an ancient record. Whether this evidence rises to the level of "proof" is up to each person's judgment. There have been some ingenious speculative possibilities raised as to why Lehi's DNA might have disappeared from history.
(cont.)
Still the most correct book... | 1:46 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
...because a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any
other book. Correct doctrinally. That has always been the claim.
And no, just because you heard something from numerous talks and lessons from a lay ministry, no matter how long perpetuated, does not make it a doctrine that is suddenly being refuted. I've heard a lot of weird things from talks and lessons too, but we all have recourse to God to separate the wheat from the chaff. Seems to me that those who never took advantage of that are the "blind sheep" that they are so fond of accusing the rest of us as.
And no, just because you heard something from numerous talks and lessons from a lay ministry, no matter how long perpetuated, does not make it a doctrine that is suddenly being refuted. I've heard a lot of weird things from talks and lessons too, but we all have recourse to God to separate the wheat from the chaff. Seems to me that those who never took advantage of that are the "blind sheep" that they are so fond of accusing the rest of us as.
freemason | 1:47 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
The church in 1984 lifted the ban on my fellow freemasons. The church is full of
changes. We must accept that.
Huh? Reply-Reply | 1:48 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
Once again, cogent, rational logic, along with any grasp of facts, completely
eludes you.
The LDS Church is NOT EVEN CLOSE to being "the largest growing religion on the face of the earth." And even if it was, that is not evidence of truth. Walmart is the largest corporation in the world, but that does not prove it is of divine origin.
That Joseph Smith had no "formal" education does not mean he was uneducated nor unsophisticated. He was capable of writing the BOM, especially with the help of Cowdery and others, and using (plagiarizing?) "View of the Hebrews" (1823) by Ethan Smith in Vermont.
The LDS Church is NOT EVEN CLOSE to being "the largest growing religion on the face of the earth." And even if it was, that is not evidence of truth. Walmart is the largest corporation in the world, but that does not prove it is of divine origin.
That Joseph Smith had no "formal" education does not mean he was uneducated nor unsophisticated. He was capable of writing the BOM, especially with the help of Cowdery and others, and using (plagiarizing?) "View of the Hebrews" (1823) by Ethan Smith in Vermont.
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.
- Comparison of health care bills 7:21 p.m.
- New reality series 'Basketball Wives' 7:20 p.m.
- 1/3 don't put babies on back to sleep 7:18 p.m.
- Trapped dog reunited with owner 7:13 p.m.
- Spartans hold on to beat Citadel 7:06 p.m.
- Witness: Mitchell stalked victims 6:57 p.m.
- UTA, union continue contract talks 6:44 p.m.
- Alleged controversy in '07 Jazz game 6:39 p.m.
- U. says it needs campus repairs 6:31 p.m.
- Ranking the bowl games 6:30 p.m.
- Letters: Liberal because LDS
277 - Y. profs: Beck not all-knowing256
- TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl202
- Hate not limited to 1 in-state rivalry191
- Aggies shoot past Cougars179
- Cougars going back to Vegas142
- N.Y. Senate rejects gay marriage140
- Utah/BYU rivalry can be more civil129
- Letters: Global warming a lie129
- George lost in rivalry hatefest119
For the latest news in the health care debate and how it affects you...
Amazon.com, Target.com, Sears.com, Walmart.com, Kmart.com and...
Latest comments
Keep it clean or go join the Crimson Line!
I think that the TCU and Boise State teams should agree to not play the game....
No, Maxie will not make it. He'll be QBing for Utah since their QB couldn't...
I would hate it if the Jazz end up having a record that warrants only one...
Fewer bees mean fewer plants get pollinated which means less food. What do...
I ask with sincerity, who of you 59 commenting have read Palin's book? Write...
A woman shouldn't have an abortion, because of the right's of the child -...
BYU Fan & BCS Cowards, I agree, they should withdraw to make a point but...
Everybody whines every time we get the invite to the Vegas Bowl, why? Here is...
Louis has inspired me to be passionately involved with the poor both with my...
Advertisements
To all LDS and non-LDS out there: Let's show some of the tolerance we all surely profess to believe in and respect each other's beliefs and way of life.