Deseret News | Reader comments: MormonTimes.com: Raiders of the lost Book of Mormon DNA

Reader comments
MormonTimes.com: Raiders of the lost Book of Mormon DNA

216 comments | Read story

Page:
1
2
3
4
5
Next >

Indiana | 5:28 a.m. May 30, 2008

What a fun article. I too however do NOT base my love for the Book of Mormon on science. It takes reading, pondering and praying to come up with the only answer that really counts.

I cannot wait for next weeks installment. I find archaeology just so interesting...

Flawed methodology | 5:57 a.m. May 30, 2008

I know this man means well, but isn't he placing the cart before the horse? He's trying to find the Book of Mormon location based on an ambiguous science.

A geographical model for the Book of Mormon must agree with the internal requirements in the Book of Mormon.

Since central America fits the internal requirements for the Book of Mormon (among many others), and North America doesn't, it is more reasonable to assume that the genetic markers were either lost (because the group was so small) or because it has not been identified, or that Lehi's, Sariah, or Ishmael's family contained Asiatic DNA markers.

There are many other possibilities why there is European DNA markers in North America: additional migrations that we do not know about.

The possibilities have not been exhausted. Meldrum seems to be playing up to Mormon folklore rather than adhering to good scientific and archaeological principles.

The DNA criticism should easily be rejected since archeology in the Old and New worlds provide evidence for the Book of Mormon text.

Missing the Mark | 6:09 a.m. May 30, 2008

The article states:

ï¿½Common conceptions among members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, including artists from Arnold Friberg to Walter Rane, imagine the events of the Book of Mormon in a lush tropical environment.ï¿½

This is consistent with the text of the Book of Mormon placing ï¿½new years dayï¿½ during the warm climate period. We donï¿½t just ï¿½imagineï¿½ that the Book of Mormon takes place in a lush tropical environment, the text makes it an internal requirement.

A "hot" new years day indicates "tropical." There is NO way that the great lakes area can fit that description.

Comments continue below

byl046 | 7:27 a.m. May 30, 2008

Missing the Mark:
You are making an assumption that the ancient Nephite civilization had a New Year's Day on the same day as ours; January 1st (a relatively modern creation by the way). Most ancient cultures celebrated solstice days as the annual calender clock; which are June 21st and December 21st. June 21st in North America can be sweltering. Of course Dec 21st is not. The point being an ancient culture celebrated a new year when it felt like it. Not when we do.

Bedtime stories | 7:56 a.m. May 30, 2008

From the article: "Even though he was not a geneticist, he was determined to find evidence.

"I went into this research with a huge bias," Meldrum said. "I already knew the answers. Because, you see, I know from a personal, spiritual standpoint that the Book of Mormon is a true document -- that it is a literal history."

So. A layman with a testimony begins a search for evidence to confirm his faith.

The chances of Meldrum's "research" being performed and reported with any semblance of intellectual honesty and scientific validity are precisely zero.

His readers won't care, however. They want bedtime stories, not science.

Ralph | 8:02 a.m. May 30, 2008

It is surprising to see how far some people will go in an attempt to make a silk purse out of a sows ear. What is it about these people that they can not accept or live reality.

Doug | 8:04 a.m. May 30, 2008

Here, here, "byl046". I agree with you. I was about to write a very similar comment, but found yours already here instead. Very good point.

I think eventually DNA may be found in more than one location, here and in the Old World, that will point us in the right directions, gradually. I think little pieces here and there, not just DNA science, but other clues / leads will help the picture form over the years.

After all, the Lord does not usually just give us things on a platter. We must work things out first to show faith, then later a more sure knowledge can be obtained.

Who knows what other sciences He may show to us in the future as long as we keep digging and inquiring and working on it.

Good Luck, really... | 8:03 a.m. May 30, 2008

Good luck, really, I hope he finds what he is looking for. It does seem like many apologists have to "peddle hard" though. The BOM clearly states that the people were very numerous and had spread to the land "north and south". The numbers killed in the final battle are worth noting when trying to say they were a small group. It does not look like they were. Further the book indicates that God would not allow people to come here unless he brought them, it was a "land of promise" and "they were to serve him or be swept off from the face of the land". The massive findings of north-eastern Asian DNA validates what our eyes have been telling us...the people in the new world are descendants of Asians, mixed now with Spanish and some other Europeans. To date no DNA markers consistent with Isrealitish peoples have been found....Zero. But keep looking, I want the BOM to be true, but given the character of JS and BY and others, it don't look good. But it is a good book, and does have good teachings, alot of it straight out of the bible. I still hope.

Roy | 8:06 a.m. May 30, 2008

Does anyone ever wonder if God was able to curse cain with a dark skin, that possibly he could make changes to DNA? Maybe this is why there isn't much DNA evidence: God wants people to develop a spiritual and not an intellectual witness to the Book of Mormon.

Seek Truth | 8:08 a.m. May 30, 2008

Confirmed science and truth are the same thing. God wants us to seek truth all that we can. That is why we must "digg" for the answers if we want to know the historical setting for the Book of Mormon.

The Book of Mormon states:

Alma 32: 21
21 And now as I said concerning faithï¿½faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.

Mormons should be about getting at the truth. We should not feel obligated to confirm every notion or opinion that LDS leaders or members have had about Book of Mormon geography.

If we follow the confirmed "science", we'll find the truth.

Bigfoot | 8:22 a.m. May 30, 2008

I think this is the same Dr. Jeff Meldrum who is the world's expert on BIGFOOT. Hmmm... Bigfoot and Nephites - they both have at least one thing in common.

David Ovard | 8:32 a.m. May 30, 2008

How can anyone assess the DNA of Book of Mormon people? What was the DNA of Ismael and his family members? What about the DNA of the Mulekites? What about the DNA of Zoram? Were all of the Jaredites really killed off throughout the Americas? Could DNA from other sources have existed in Lehi and his wife through the marriages of ancestors? For example, what was the DNA of Joseph's children through their mother, Asenath, in Egypt? I think we know far too little about the people of the Book of Mormon and DNA to make any conclusions at this time.

Indiana Jones | 8:38 a.m. May 30, 2008

A Good Indiana Jones story. I love all these wonderful fairy tales about DNA. We really do need to do some important digs and where some digs are well needed. We might start with the Southern Utah / Arizona border.

zwod | 8:42 a.m. May 30, 2008

OK,
DNA does`nt work for the Nephites et al.
How about that the fact there is`nt one shred of physical evidence anywhere in the world for Mormon story.
The lost tribe thing was around in the 1700s (see Lewis and Clark).
Read the first volume of the Comprehensive History of the Church. Note the jibirish on the scrap of said plate copy.
Sorry folks....pure nonsense.

Important Point | 8:47 a.m. May 30, 2008

By1046:

You make a good point but the the great lakes area does not fit the geographical, cultural, political, internal requirements of the Book of Mormon.

Mesoamerica does. We can use reason and evidence that the "X" is not over upstate New York.

John | 8:52 a.m. May 30, 2008

How convenient for a lay person intent on proving the truth he already "knows" to part ways with the theories of geneticists which go against that truth.

As a lay person and a non-Mormon, I'm not saying we know everything about the past regarding these matters. Of course not. And I'm not trying to incite a flame war here. I'm just offering an outside perspective, for it seems to me a sign of insecurity and doubt that someone who already knows the "truth" should set out to prove it.

We know where the next installment will go--there's no way he'll concur that the Great Lakes region has anything to do with the BOM. Such a conclusion would border on heresy would it not?

To David | 8:57 a.m. May 30, 2008

All good points...the makeup of DNA of a person in Israel in 600 BC may not be like the DNA of a present day Jewish inhabitant. However, from my reading of the "experts", they seem to think that current Jewish DNA and ancient remains of people in Palestine do match well....so this might mean that we should see something like that in the indiginous peoples in North, Central, and/or South America...but we do not, yet anyway. Some questions that we don't have answers to may be important...(1) what was Sariah's DNA (her ethnic background); (2) Would some of the wives (daughters of Ishmael) have been of a "mixed race", maybe Asian? So far, as I said earlier ("Good luck, really"), the evidence does not support the BOM's claims. BH Roberts "book" (atually published well after his death) is one that goes through a number of possible BOM origins other than the divine origin story. I suppose he could be right, maybe Smith did use Ethan Smith's "A View of the Hebrews" as source material for the BOM. Matters of faith, are, well, matters of faith. Science says the first people in the Americas came about 12,000 years ago.

To Bedtime Stories @7:56 | 9:01 a.m. May 30, 2008

To Bedtime and Others:

I was about to make the exact same comments:

From the article: "Even though he was not a geneticist, he was determined to find evidence.

"I went into this research with a huge bias," Meldrum said. "I already knew the answers. Because, you see, I know from a personal, spiritual standpoint that the Book of Mormon is a true document -- that it is a literal history."

I really don't understand how serious thinkers can expect "the truth" from researchers who already have their minds made up.

What's the point of doing any research if you already KNOW the answer?

Brianna | 9:03 a.m. May 30, 2008

I am very embarrassed about this article. I'm sure Dr. Meldrum means well, but he has spent a major portion of his career trying to prove the existence of bigfoot. He has been on various radio and t.v. programs giving proof that bigfoot is not an imaginary creature.

I think the Book of Mormon and DNA research deserve a little more serious study than from a bigfoot hunter.

Lots of evidence | 9:05 a.m. May 30, 2008

Zwod:

You're living in the 1950s. There is lots of evidence for Book of Mormon that did not exist in 1830 but exists today. What you're saying is that there is not 100% conclusive proof that ALL of the Book of Mormon narrative is corroborated. LDS researchers will concede that point.

I have seen some comments that say its "PURE" fantasy and not "any shred of proof."

But we don't need 100% proof. What we need to find is evidence for some of the complex predictions in the Book of Mormon.

The Book of Mormon makes many claims. It makes a prediction that in 600 BC there was a city between Jerusalem and the southern coast of Arabia called Nahom (NHM in Hebrew or Arabic).

The Book of Mormon states that due east from that ancient city, a garden spot in the middle of the desert will be found. At the garden spot, there will be over 14 distinguishable geographical features including specific fruit, ore, a harbor, mountains, trees, and honeybees.

In 2002, the British Museum cataloged, NHM (600 BC), and the garden spot was found on the coast of Oman.

All found.

The Trap | 9:09 a.m. May 30, 2008

All religions seem to want people to develop a "spiritual" rather than "intellectual" witness of their doctrines, scriptures, and teachings. Why? Because a "spiritual" witness comes only to those who are righteous and "have ears to hear" and "eyes to see". That way if you don't get a witness, the fault is with YOU, not the doctrines or the stories. That is the sort of trap con artists use all the time.

Even though science is not perfect, at least science can be used to dismantle such con artist traps and increase the liklihood we are getting knowledge claims that have some substance.

T-Bone | 9:13 a.m. May 30, 2008

Hey Bigfoot...do a little more research. This man's name is Rodney Meldrum not Jeff Meldrum. Don't let facts get in the way of a good personal attack though. Right, wrong, or indifferent at least get the right man.

Fred | 9:16 a.m. May 30, 2008

My understanding of proper scientific research is that it begins with a hypotheses, which the researcher(s) then set(s) out to prove or disprove, enjoying the discovery of either outcome for the way in which it contributes to the present body of knowledge.

Meldrum admits he begins with a knowledge of the truth, which is far different than a hypotheses. While he could use the outcome to prove his supposed knowlege of the truth (I doubt it will disprove anything in his eyes), there is no scientific validity to his process of discovery--for his process will be biased due to the knowledge he already holds.

At least he's upfront about his bias. Props to him for that.

Mark | 9:18 a.m. May 30, 2008

About Dr. Meldrum from Wikipedia:

"Meldrumï¿½s interest in the Sasquatch took off after being shown 15-inch footprints by Paul Freeman, in a plowed field near Walla Walla, Washington. Although initially believing the tracks to be forgeries, upon further examination noticed what he believes is evidence of a high degree of flexibility in the print and a mid-tarsal break, traits he has come to believe belong to Bigfoot. Meldrum is the author of the 2006 book Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science."

This doesn't give me a lot of confidence in Mr. Meldrum's research.

Mormonism rejects mysticism | 9:28 a.m. May 30, 2008

The foundation of Mormon revelation is first REASON. In Mormon scriptures and according to Mormon leaders, if we are speaking about reason and faith, reason ALWAYS comes first.

Mormonism embraces the scientific method and rejects platonic mysticism. For Mormons, God exists inside reality and therefore, spiritual witnesses, miracles, and the power of God have their basis in reality according to the laws of physics.

Confirmed science is truth and all Mormons should be seeking all the "science" they possibly can.

All of the world religions base their theology and their approach to reality from the point of view that we must "suspend" reality in order to know God.

Mormonism EMPHATICALLY rejects that notion.

Therefore, we should "do" archeology and let the chips fall where they may and learn to reject Mormon folklore and embrace the text of the Book of Mormon and the scientific truth.

Crux of the matter | 9:31 a.m. May 30, 2008

The bottom line here (even though the current topic is about DNA) is really that the Book of Mormon has to be either (a) a record that was given to Joseph Smith by the angel Moroni and subsequently translated into English by the gift and power of God - and thus a true record, or (b) that it is a hoax first perpetuated by deceptive and evil men and that evil men continue to perpetuate the hoax in our day. It's my belief that "a" is the correct answer, and that for now, the God of us all will test our faith as to our belief. However, in the future; related to the Book of Mormon and many other spirtual matters of import, that He will "yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God". When we're ready, and in his own due time. Just my opinion.

Hey T-Bone | 9:35 a.m. May 30, 2008

T-Bone, Google "meldrum bigfoot." Whether it is the same Jeffrey Meldrum I do not know, but it most certainly is a Jeffrey Meldrum who believes in Bigfoot.

Funny | 9:38 a.m. May 30, 2008

Some of the comments here are so funny.

Roy - Your comment just made my weekend. God changed their DNA on purpose just to confuse people so they could only have a spiritual testimony of truth but no facts or proof.
You pray hard enough about anything, you can convince yourself its true.

Brother Chuck Schroeder | 9:42 a.m. May 30, 2008

China's sensorship and communism is a more open substance of truth than in this story. This DNA research deserve's a little more serious study. As a lay person and a non-Mormon he may be right here to. The possibilities have not been exhausted. They are still very much alive. Anyone can read and imagine the events of the Book of Mormon in their mind set, while reading it or afterward, however, if one said "I am from the show me State, MO" "show me the proof, in real substance, right in front of our eyes, could it be showen?. NO. Unless someone with his whip, like this man, does his "Raiders of the lost Book of Mormon DNA", and show's it black on white, that real substance one can hold in hand. After all, anyone can write a book, a book that had changes in it several times since it was written to, what science brought out those change's, we know it was not typos that did it. Hope this gives you some food for thought here as well. It did with me.

Marky | 9:42 a.m. May 30, 2008

I have listened to Rod Meldrum speak and reviewed his evidence. It is far more compelling that you would think. I was a complete skeptic, but his presentation opened my eyes to some new research.

It's also important to note that while Rod is not claiming to be a researcher, he is using research performed by prominent experts and assembling this research to illuminate new ideas. This is sciense at its best.

Don't dismiss this man just because you're ignorant about the research or a typical hater.

Fritz | 9:50 a.m. May 30, 2008

First of all, it is amazing that the naysayers site genetic evidence to support their preconceived notion that the Book of Mormon is false yet don't allow believers to use DNA evidence to support their view. Also, it is easier for them to believe that the Book of Mormon was made up in three months by a poor farm boy with a third grade education than it is to believe that it might be what it claims to be. They belittle the efforts of a layman who does a literature search, yet are more than willing to swallow whatever story is dished out to them as long as it is critical of the Book of Mormon.

Please Clarify | 10:00 a.m. May 30, 2008

These type of stories merit reporting by the Deseret News only as a Life or human interest story about a man on an interesting quest. Stories like this don't belong in the Mormon Times section as if to promote the idea that this research has validity and support of the Church.

Hey Fritz | 10:01 a.m. May 30, 2008

Your defensiveness is clouding your reason. I suggest that your focus on what is both critical and non-critical of the Book of Mormon is as great if not greater than a non-believer's focus on such things. I also suggest that the notion of Joseph Smith as a poor and ignorant farm boy is based as much on myth as it is on fact. I even wonder if Mr. Smith truly was the only author of the BOM.

"typical hater" ?? | 10:01 a.m. May 30, 2008

Marky,

I dismiss the man's _work_ not out of ignorance, but because it's sloppy, highly selective and unabashedly biased?

How about getting your head around the concept that it's not hate that motivates criticism of Meldrum' highly questionable "research," but rather a _love_ of the objective, provable, replicable truth?

Mr. Glass | 10:12 a.m. May 30, 2008

Is it really possible for a Mormon to be unbiased in his scientific studies regarding so-called proofs about the Book of Mormon. Why not allow non-Mormon scientists with no ax to grind with respect to the LDS Church, indeed, who doesn't even think about the LDS Church, to determine the make-up of peoples before Columbus?

Fredd | 10:12 a.m. May 30, 2008

I notice the TBMs never give any credit to non believers like myself. How do you know I don't have an open mind? Here we have an admittedly biased laymen deviating from gentic researchers where their research doesn't support his bias. How is it close minded to say he is not credible? Once he finds his proof (this is science after all) and it is peer reviewed then we can accept his views. I think that is open minded. Until then he is a biased layman.

metamoracoug | 10:21 a.m. May 30, 2008

To bedtime stories:

At least this author admits his bias. On the opening page ofSoutherton's book about DNA and the BOM, he claims to be completely objective -- as most scientists do -- only looking at the evidence. Yet, in the next few pages, it is very obvious that he has an axe to grind.

Bedtimes stories tickle the ears of whoever listens to them. And there are plenty on both sides of this very complex conundrum.

Dear Fritz | 10:25 a.m. May 30, 2008

We need top scientists who aren't trying to prove or disprove the B of M to help determine the genetic make-up up for Indians, not non-scientists or junk science Mormons trying to prove the B of M is true. Believe it or not, there are scientists who are studying the issue with no thought about Mormon belief. Pay attention to their discoveries, not some guy who is determine to bend the truth to fit his beliefs. Mormons aren't the only religious folks who do this, by the way.

It's possible to be a very intelligent person without much education to do amazing things like fool everyone about a fake book. Three months? Give me a break. He spend far more time writing that book with assistance from an educated man. Why are you so gullible?

To Fritz and Marky | 10:24 a.m. May 30, 2008

I don't understand why anyone who is seriously searching for "truth" is labeled as "a typical hater" or told they "are more than willing to swallow whatever story is dished out to them as long as it is critical of the Book of Mormon."

Why is our integrity always questioned if one reaches a different conclusion than you have?

Brother Chuck Schroeder | 10:27 a.m. May 30, 2008

Credibility of witnesses - A set of three and eight witnesses testified as having seen the golden plates, the record from which the Book of Mormon was translated. Critics, including Jerald and Sandra Tanner, and the Institute for Religious Research note several pieces of evidence that they argue call into question the authenticity of the experience. Each of the Three Witnesses Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer left the church during Joseph Smith's lifetime and considered Smith to have been a fallen prophet. Harris and Cowdery later returned to the church. However, the Institute for Religious Research disputes the sincerity of their conversion and return. In 1881 Whitmer, the one witness who never returned to the church, issued an affidavit reaffirming his testimony of the experience. Different accounts of the First Vision - Richard Abanes and the Tanners note that ten differing accounts of the First Vision have been recorded, which they claim contain contradictory information about what beings were present and what they said. Grant H. Palmer points out evidence that Joseph Smith did not speak about the First Vision until a decade after it was said to have occurred.

Brother Chuck Schroeder | 10:30 a.m. May 30, 2008

In 1842 Willard Richards, then church historian, was assigned the task of compiling a large number of documents and producing a history of the church from them. He worked on this material between 21 December 1842 and 27 March 1843. Richards, who had not joined the church until 1836, relied on the writings or recollections of Heber C. Kimball, Wilford Woodruff, and perhaps others for his information regarding the discovery of Zelph. Blending the sources available to him, and perhaps using oral accounts from some of the members of Zion's Camp, but writing as if he were Joseph Smith, historian Richards drafted the story of Zelph as it appears in the "Manuscript History of the Church, Book A-1." With respect to points relative to Book of Mormon geography, Richards wrote that "Zelph was a white Lamanite, a man of God who was a warrior and chieftain under the great prophet Onandagus who was known from the "hill Cumorah is crossed out in the manuscript" eastern Sea, to the Rocky Mountains. He was killed in battle, by the arrow found among his ribs, during a great struggle with the Lamanites........

Steven Danderson | 10:31 a.m. May 30, 2008

byl046 said:
>

Actually, no. December, the twelveth month of our year, was only the TENTH month in the Roman calendar (Decem = ten). Its year started in March.

The Babylonian and Sumerian and other ancient calendars started about the equinoxes, too.

Rosh Hashanah, commonly known as the Jewish New Year, occurs in September. Nisan, the first Jewish month, is in March or April. It is reasonable to think that the Nephite New Year to be during one of those times.

I grew up in "Chicagoland," with average highs in the 50's and 60's, F during those months. True, Chicago can get hot then, but the Book of Mormon text doesn't seem to indicate that the New Year's weather was unusual for that time of year.

The rest of the Great Lakes area have even cooler temperatures during those months.

I remain unconvinced of Brother Meldrum's model, even though both the Book of Mormon and the Gospel true.

Mr. Glass | 10:35 a.m. May 30, 2008

It's amazing how information can be lost when science doesn't fit belief despite the overwhelming evidence that Indians living in the Americas are descendants of Asians. How convenient!

Anonymous | 10:35 a.m. May 30, 2008

I just wanted to comment on what is getting lost in the debate -- that this was an very interesting, well-written article! Nice job Michael!

Craig | 10:36 a.m. May 30, 2008

Jeff Meldrum is an associate professor at ISU and a trained PhD scientist. Rod Meldrum, the subject of this story, is not a trained scientist. Rod and Jeff are different people as in not the same.

Robert | 10:37 a.m. May 30, 2008

And the mormons wonder why the world sees them as a wierd and silly people.

To Fritz | 10:37 a.m. May 30, 2008

I honestly don't believe "that the Book of Mormon was made up in three months by a poor farm boy with a third grade education." This is a myth that people keep repeating. Joseph Smith actually had "years and years" to create the stories that he wrote. Read what his mother, Lucy, wrote about how he often entertained the family with his tales about ancient civilizations.

And how many years did he keep going back to see the Angel Moroni?

Joseph was also very well acquainted with the Bible, and I've read that both of Joseph's parents were former school teachers. In fact, it seems like Joseph loved to surround himself with educated people, perhaps he wasn't as "uneducated" as you like to think?

Jones | 10:39 a.m. May 30, 2008

My name is jones and I lived in Indiana...(based on some people's falacious reasoning, that would make ME an expert...) After studying ancient culture and traveling in ancient Mesoamerica for two decades, I'm not sure there is a ready answer to the WHERE of the BofM. DNA aside, the preponderence of evidence on every other count (sophisticated civilizations and cultures so pervasive they could have drowned any Nephite remains in the flotsam of history)is pretty convincing there. But even evidences of interaction among the multiple, related cultures in that area spread up into North America and South as far as El Salvador. I expect one day we'll be able to answer the "where" question and it will certainly be very interesting indeed. After reading their case, the Great Lakes theory doesn't rate too highly on my speculative list though.

metamoracoug | 10:40 a.m. May 30, 2008

to Mormonism rejects mysticism:

Well spoke, my friend!

There is much that is recycled among Mormons that is "folklore." In our search for truth we look wherever it can be found.

Unfortunately, much of what is pandered as truth (whether among Mormons by Mormons or by those who may fall under the category of "anti-Mormons") is twisted science -- bent to serve the bias of whoever is pandering.

As I mentioned above in another comment, at least this gentelman admits his bias. Therefore, those who are reading can judge accordingly.

To Fritz @ 9:50 | 10:44 a.m. May 30, 2008

How much education do you think it takes to "dictate" a story to more educated scribes who then write down what you've said? Especially if you've been a serious Bible searcher and practicing the story for years and years before that time?

Page:
1
2
3
4
5
Next >

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.