Deseret News | 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

sb | 10:51 a.m. May 30, 2008

Mr. Meldrum isn't the only person coming to a conclusion that Book of Mormon events may have taken place in the Great Lakes region. "The Lost Land of the Book of Mormon" by Phyllis Olive also strongly suggests the idea of the Great Lakes region being the home of Book of Mormon events. The Book of Mormon is real and did take place somewhere. At any rate any place they are researching Central America or Great Lakes or any other place I am not aware of has a story or history anyway. As they continue to research no doubt there will be something of value to learn from whether it is the Book of Mormon place or not. Prior to Columbus and the Pilgrims the way some would present history is that no one existed on this continent before them, but obviously someone was here and had a history. I would like to learn and understand this history some day. So continue to research and maybe something good will come one day.

Objective? | 10:56 a.m. May 30, 2008

Southernton, Meldrum, the Painted Faces with Guns? You tell me who is scientific. As a geneticist, the issues of BoM DNA requires more time and money than any of the principles have. In the end you will only achieve a debatable conclusion, much like the resurrection of Christ. Try proving that one.

To Fredd | 10:56 a.m. May 30, 2008

I totally agree with what you've written. I get so tired and frustrated with members who say anyone who doesn't have the exact same testimony as they do are simply haters, or nay-sayers, or don't have open minds.

I don't think they have any idea of the years of research we may have done or the many sincere prayers we may have offered simply hoping to gain a similar testimony; but then we finally realize that for us it just doesn't work.

I'm not a hater, and I do have an open mind. I just don't make up my mind first and then only accept whatever matches that mindset.

Instead, I search for what seems reasonable, rational, and logical--one of my silly weaknesses, I guess.

Comments continue below

Jeff | 11:05 a.m. May 30, 2008

It seems to me that despite absolutely no credible evidence being found to support BOM claims, some people will go to endless lengths to try and make it reality fit the BOM .. Why do they do that ? If you believe in Nephites and Lamanites .. cool, that's your faith and you perogative .. good luck to you but why oh why do you need to push your views, on a subject that 98% of the US think is just absolute and utter nonsense I must add, onto everyone else without a single shred of physical evidence to support your "facts" .. not a single scrap of tangible evidence available to any of us .. not one .. zilch .. nada .. zip .. NIL .. All that said, does anyone on the site want to buy a slightly used unicorn ?

metamoracoug | 11:08 a.m. May 30, 2008

OK. Now that I've read the article and everyone's comments. let me first address those who suggest that there is no archeological evidence for the BOM.

The BOM was originally published in 1829. At that time, what was known about ancient America or Amercians? Almost nothing. For those living in the United States, their knowledge was largely limited to their immediate experience with Native Americans. The Spanish had dealings with the cultures and civilizations of Central America, but most of their knowledge had been conveniently tucked away at the universities to be forget for a couple centuries.

So, when the BOM suggests that a Native American population had a written language and kept extensive records, 1830's Americans would have chuckled and said, "Yeah, sure Joe." Archeological evidence clearly demonstrates this fact.

Likewise, the BOM suggests that there was a civilization with an organized, well run governments. Again, we hear our 1830's US citizen scoff. Archeological evidence points strongly to this fact.

The BOM suggests there was tremendous migrations occurring among Native Americans. Our early Americans would have been totally clueless in this regard. Yet again, however, archeological research bears this fact out.

If you care, see more below.

Raymond Takashi Swenson | 11:11 a.m. May 30, 2008

The Rod Meldrum in this article is NOT Professor Jeffrey Meldrum, PhD, of Idaho State University. Professor Meldrum and his LDS colleague Professor Trent Stephens recently published a book entitled "Who are the Children of Lehi? DNA and the Book of Mormon" (Greg Kofford Books) which is a thorough scientific analysis of the controversy. The ONLY genetic marker that is identified with ancient Israelites is the Cohen descent Y chromosome marker, which confirmed the traditions of the East African Lemba tribe that some of their ancestors were Levites who fled Judea. The Cohen Y chromosome marker descends from father to son, and was identified because Jewish descendants of priestly families have maintained their genealogies. The DNA studies of Amerindians have looked at Mitochondrial DNA (MtDNA), passed from mother to daughters. There has been NO research for the Cohen marker in the Americas. And nothing in the Book of Mormon suggests that Levites were among the ancestors of its people. No one knows what the MtDNA or the non-Levite Y chromosome of 600 BC Israel looked like.

Dr. W. | 11:17 a.m. May 30, 2008

As a TBM who is also a Harvard-trained academic researcher (PhD -- although not in genetics), I believe that integrity requires a full and frank treatment of all evidences, whether scientific or spiritual (which, though non-externalizable, can certainly be as compelling on a personal basis as objective scientific evidence). Because of this, I was certainly concerned, at first, by the DNA evidence that seemed to be in conflict with my belief structure (which is based on other types of evidence).

But then, when I looked at this rationally, if God were to perform the miracle of 2 Ne. 5:21, and this change of skin color were to be perpetuated to following generations, how would He have done it? By changing the DNA, of course. Technically speaking, a change in phenotype requires a change in genotype. Assuming the BOM is true, it would be irrational to expect the genotype to match a Jewish genotype. The lack of match with middle-east genotypes is not a problem.

How did this change of genotype take place? Maybe I will know some day. Why would God have changed it to match an Asiatic genotype? That is a sticky one... I have theories, but....

metamoracoug | 11:31 a.m. May 30, 2008

Still more:

Joseph Smith suggested that the BOM was written in reformed Egyptian. Our average 1830's American would have laughed out loud to have Native Americans in any way compared to one of the greatest of ancient civilizations. Linda Schele and David Freidel, Maya scholars who are not LDS or affiliated with BYU or anything Mormon, refer to the written language of the Maya as "reformed Egyptian" in their book A Forest of Kings.

The BOM suggests that its people kept time by at least two different calenders. In 1830, people would have scoffed that Native Americans bothered with time at all. Archeological evidence on this point is clear. Mayans used at least two calenders to mark the passage of time.

I have a God-given testimony of the BOM. But this short list (there is much more) of evidence encourages my faith.

I'm not done yet, so if any one really cares, see more below.

Believer | 11:38 a.m. May 30, 2008

The way I see this is a guy who knows the BOM is true but is actually taking intiaitve to make sence of all the crap he heres out there about his beliefs. Its what we should all be doing. Too many people in the world read a story on Yahoo News and take that as the end all be all of it. Here we have a guy who is studying the evidence on his own and willing to share it with others. Oh and BTW, wasn't there a time when the top scientits of their day thought the world was flat, that the universe rotated around the earth, that smoking was healty and that Pluto was a planet? Science is not infallible.

Thomas | 11:46 a.m. May 30, 2008

I'm not sure that the elephants in the Book of Mormon would have survived Great Lakes winters.

Not to mention all those Lamanites running around half-naked.

How does a history covering a thousand years never mention snow, if it happened in a cold-winter climate zone?

I think the Great Lakes Region hypothesis about Book of Mormon geography is implausible.

As for the Book of Mormon describing a "small" population, I find that implausible, too. There's the account of 240,000 (or at least 24 military units with the name "ten thousand") being killed in the final battle between the Nephites and Lamanites. Even if the "ten thousands" commanded by Mormon didn't actually consist of ten thousand men (compare a Roman "century" after a season of hard campaigning; its nominal strength of 100 might be down to 50 or fewer), the name indicates that the formation would have been originally given to a 10,000-strong force.

It takes quite a large society to field that big an army. Even a population of 50,000 Nephites would have been a sizeable culture in ancient America. The idea that all their DNA could just be "lost" requires some major leaps of logic.

MoJules | 11:52 a.m. May 30, 2008

The greatest scientist that has existed in our time is God Himself, He knows all the laws, and He knows them perfectly. When I watch science shows, or any educational type of show, I marvel at how precise and perfect things are done. It is amazing to me how there is so much out there, so much we have learned and are going to learn and that there is a All Knowing God who governs all that He has created. We have continued in our learning, and 100 years from now we will know so much more and just like the know it alls that said the world was flat, there will be modern day know it alls who will find out that there is knowledge far beyond what they can comprehend. Yes there is a God, He created this earth, he created life of all kinds and he knows far more than we do, my vote goes for Him.

metamoracoug | 11:52 a.m. May 30, 2008

My last word:

For those of you who claim there is no evidence, it is time for you to get intimately acquainted with the BOM. Read it. Not once, not twice, but dozens of times. Then, do your homework. Read something about Native Americans. In fact, read everything you can get your hands on about them.

If, after all this research, you are still comfortable making the claim that there is no evidence -- not one shred of tangible evidence, nothing, nada, zip -- I'll give you the title to my house. (Yes, I own it outright)

To my Mormon compatriots: we are long past the time when we can be complacent in this matter. Get educated! Read what the scholars (both LDS and non-LDS) have written. The evidence is there. You need to know it (both intellectually and by revelation). Then, when the winds blow and floods come, the anchors of your faith will be firmly rooted on the true Rock.

Enough? | 11:56 a.m. May 30, 2008

It seems to me that even if non-LDS scientists uncovered DNA evidence connecting Native Americans and ancient Jews tomorrow, it wouldn't be enough evidence for most of those that attack the Book of Mormon. They would either find some way to dismiss the evidence, ignore that it exists, or conveniently forget that they ever used DNA to argue against the Book of Mormon in the first place.

But perhaps my perception is wrong. For those of you who don't believe in the Book of Mormon, would such evidence be enough for you? If not, what would be enough?

FaithNoMo | 11:56 a.m. May 30, 2008

Shouldn't God tell the Prophets that they are way off? I mean, they keep sticking with the same old story that is clearly not true.

Thomas | 12:35 p.m. May 30, 2008

Metamoracoug -- The problem is not that there is *nothing* that could be considered evidence for the Book of Mormon. One can find *some* evidence for almost everything, including space aliens in New Mexico. The problem is that many people determine that the *weight* of the evidence is against the Book of Mormon being an ancient document.

For some of those people, this doesn't matter: They've received what they are convinced is a spiritual confirmation that the book is what it claims to be. My own "halting between two opinions" comes from having tried to find such a confirmation for about two decades now, without result.

"Enough" -- Finding Israelite DNA in North America would remove the argument from DNA *against* the Book of Mormon, but it wouldn't necessarily be evidence *for* the Book of Mormon. There are other ways those genes could have gotten there, such as an ancient voyage to the New World separate from the one the Book of Mormon describes. For a comparison, consider that just because Latino DNA is found at a crime scene doesn't mean that one specific Latino named Jose Arellano Vasquez did the deed.

to Smart to learn | 1:12 p.m. May 30, 2008

Could it be that our Understanding of DNA is not correct, think about it the earth was flat untell some one sailed around it. are we going to learn more about otherthings in the Future and find that our Curent understanding is Flawed?

To: Dr. W | 1:49 p.m. May 30, 2008

Are you serious? You do know that the DNA for one's skin color is not being tested? There are populations in Africa which have been found to have Jewish DNA. Skin color does not alter the DNA that is being tested. I guess they didn't teach you how to do research at Harvard. By the way, I went to Weber State University. I guess I got my money's worth. I hope your student loans are paid.

metamoracoug | 1:50 p.m. May 30, 2008

Thomas, thanks for your thoughtful comment. I hope you will continue your search.

The initial point I tried to make is that the BOM describes things for which, at the time of its original publication, there was no evidence. In fact, general belief was contrary to its suggested history.

I have listed five general evidences. This is a short list of a very long list of both general and very specific archeological, literary, and cultural evidences. Obviously, time nor space allows me to go into much detail here. Ultimately, however, my point is two fold: 1) stating that there is no evidence is simple ignorance and those who proclaim it do so because they know nothing about the BOM and/or the archeological research; 2) Mormons who eat up the "folklore" without really knowing the BOM or looking at the evidence are no different than group one.

Concerned LDS | 1:52 p.m. May 30, 2008

As a devout and educated Latter-day Saint who believes in the historicity of the Book of Mormon, I am dismayed by Meldrum and his pseudoscience. His rash claims, based on "revelation" and scientific ignorance, will do significant harm to the Church and its mission by creating an easy target for critics. The faith of members who have been duped into believing there is some substance to Meldrum's theory will be damaged when the truth comes out. Meldrum's work does NOT represent responsible, faithful LDS scholarship.

Meldrum has the form of scholarship but denies the power thereof.

To Metamoracougar | 2:08 p.m. May 30, 2008

To Metamoracougar. Have you read "Studies of the Book of Mormon" by BH Roberts (although published after his death)? The tenet of Mr. Robert's book is that JS HAD a "basis" for his ideas to write the BOM...Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews" published by a man who lived in Vermont in the county next to to where the Smith household was. Ethan Smith was an educated religionist and was the pastor of the church Oliver Cowdery and his family attended. I suggest you read this book, to "get educated", you know. I am a member, but found the book to be quite interesting. Mr. Roberts was a member of the quorum of seventy, in fact a president of that quorum at one time. Ultimately the evidence does not support the claims of the BOM, but I believe it still could be true. I say that KNOWING about the evidence against it, could you say the same, IF you really knew the evidence?

Enough? again | 2:15 p.m. May 30, 2008

re: Thomas

You answered my question that such a discovery wouldn't be conclusive enough for you. But I also asked: what would be?

Seems to me like even if the *weight* of the evidence *against* the Book of Mormon is greater than the evidence *for* the Book (I personally don't believe it to be), that *weight* is a lot *smaller* than it was in 1830. In my opinion, there is a lot more evidence now to support the plausibility of the Book of Mormon than there ever has been before, and that evidence will only grow in the future.

Enough? again part 2 | 2:16 p.m. May 30, 2008

continued:

If (when, in my POV) science finally comes around and the *weight* of the evidence is in favor of the Book of Mormon, will that be enough? My guess is that it won't. I don't think that DNA evidence is really the issue for most critics, because even if it was resolved, it wouldn't be enough.

People don't convert to Mormonism because of physical evidence now, and I doubt they ever will. I'm sorry that you have been seeking for confirmation for so long without result. But don't quit trying. It took me seven long years to learn how to trust that God knew what was better for me than I did.

Fredd | 2:17 p.m. May 30, 2008

You have to take the whole body of evidence. Taking one fact indepently and showing it cannot be disproven is not evidence. For example, the Limited Geography Theory fits nicely. But it contradicts the teachings of your prophets and leaders through the years. The rise of the temple ceremony shortly after Joseph Smith joined the masons and the similarity to masonic rituals points out some connection. Mormons say (some anyway I'm generalizing) that's because Masonic Rites come from the Temple of Solomon. One, that means you admit your rites are similar to Masonic Rites and two that you believe the Masons have true Solomon's Rites but the Jews don't. Just a couple of examples. The more you climb down this tunnel the darker it gets. FYI, we can discover all kinds of evidence of civilizations from thousands of years ago but no physical evidence of the BoM civilizations from 2000 years ago (and less).

Princeton Graduate | 2:22 p.m. May 30, 2008

I just graduated with my degree in anthropology. Consider the following:

For example in Ether 15:2 (Book of Mormon) says "there had been slain 2 million of his mighty men, *and also their wives and children". This makes the population of the Jeridites between 4-6 million people. Joseph Smith himself declared that "Jared (another Biblical character from Jewish lineage) and his brother came on to this continent from the confusion and the scattering at the Tower, and lived here (the Americas) more then a thousand years, and covered the whole continent from sea to sea, with towns and cities. (Teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith, p.267)

If these people had such a massive culture, would n't these peoplehave left some kind of distinct mark on the land that shows evidence of their existance?
You would think that with such educated and advanced people, that we would find their writings all over the land.

Or, for that battle, you would think that of the 2 million Jeredites, that there would possible be atleast 1 sword left behind? Possible a helmet, a breast plate?

There is nothing.

Dear MoJules | 2:26 p.m. May 30, 2008

I didn't know god was a scientist. Name a peer reviewed journal that has published his work. Does he teach at BYU. Are his lectures on Youtube?

Doubting Thomas | 2:46 p.m. May 30, 2008

Where are the golden plates today? Why hasn't the Church made them available. I would think that the golden plates would be an enormous missionary tool.

DCnTN | 3:00 p.m. May 30, 2008

A central tenet of Mormonism is that we believe we are sent here to live by faith. I have to wonder if people who are always searching for proof of God haven't really embraced that concept. I believe that God has purposely made his existence and the truth of the gospel something that will always require faith.

Honesty and Integrity | 3:27 p.m. May 30, 2008

"In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular." -- Brigham Young

"The gospel is the truth. All truth is part of the gospel regardless of how the truth has been learned." -- Henry Eyring

There are a great number of quotes from General Authorities of the LDS Church similar to these. We mormons believe in Truth, with a capital T. The Book of Mormon has to be Truth, or it is a fraud. DNA and other scientific studies will confirm the Book of Mormon, if indeed it is true. If we have to pretend to have evidence, and make up stories, then we do not have the truth. My first allegiance will be to the Truth, and not to made-up stories, no matter how good they make me feel. If I did that, I would have no integrity. I will wait to see what the honest scientific results are, and let the chips fall where they may.

What Is the Book of Mormon? | 3:30 p.m. May 30, 2008

I am a member of the Church but have always been a bit puzzled by the emphasis placed on the Book of Mormon as the "cornerstone of our religion". Outside of the many adventures of the BofM people - the BofM is really just all about Jesus Christ. It is a second witness to Jesus Christ and his mission. There is literally nothing in the BofM regarding the unique aspects of Mormonism as revealed from JS on down. Some of the BofM actually contradicts some of the unique aspects of Mormonism. So whether the book is a literal history of a literal people or not, in the end the message is simply that Jesus Christ lived and atoned for our sins. Really not much more than that and certainly nothing that is uniquely Mormon except the claim of the reality of the Nephite/Lamanite people. I would argue that if you were to take the message of the BofM out of the BofM context and ask any run of the mill Christian if they believed it they would say "sure we teach that". Jesus Christ, faith, punishment/reward, Sermon on the Mount - that's what it is about and it's simple Christianity.

Alex | 3:44 p.m. May 30, 2008

The real question is can you stand the heat of people thinking you are a blithering idiot for believing the Book of Mormon story, while the truths of life and the gospel pour into your soul by the Holy Spirit--while your life actually improves. The truths that flow into my soul from God under the influence of this book are real and divine. I can't deny that my understanding of the Gospel has been opened, and my love for and faithfulness to God has increased as I have practiced the things that are written in there.

Any dissonance I feel is between what the world thinks they know about the book (what they think I ought to know about the book), and what the Lord has in fact confirmed to my soul about the book. I don't have any answer as to where these civilizations were. Take heart though. Until the age of archaeology, people who accepted the Bible as the word of God didn't have the proof that moderns require to verify its truth either (and in many cases, they still don't), and they knew where to start, too! Heck, they only recently discovered Sodom and Gomorrah!

Chris Plummer | 3:52 p.m. May 30, 2008

Evidence I would need in order to believe the Book of Mormon is true (any combination would do)
Obviously seeing the golden plates.
Finding evidence of metal weapons and large battles that took place.
Ruins of Zarahemla (spelling**) or any other old city from BoM. Many bible cities are still around, or we know of their old names. Seems that many of the city names from BoM just don't' exist in any Native American language.
Joseph Smith found the plates in New York, and says the events unfolded there.

gretchen | 3:57 p.m. May 30, 2008

Not only was "dear" Mr. Smith not "uneducated,", he was prodigiously gifted as a charlatan and lech (old goat.) A very talented man he was, who wrote a transparently fraud-filled book of clever but easy to disprove lies, the likes of which still sadly lure millions. Parts of a the truly Great Book of Books, the Holy Bible, King James version, are woven into it here and there, and that's where its power comes from. So, we shall continue to hear the chorus of the tricked, the LDS and its many offshoots,sing their undying praise to: Mr. Joseph Smith: Liar, Plagiarizer,Conman, Lech Extraordinaire, idol of millions.

Fredd | 4:17 p.m. May 30, 2008

To Enough--Respectfully I want to answer your question about what would be enough evidence. You believe the Bible and BoM stand side-by-side and are equal scriptures? You can take the Bible, call it a history of the Jews and I can take science and validate locations, cultures, names etc of a vast majority of events. So I kow the Bible is fairly accurate in its historical/antropolgical/archeological basis. In fact the greater our skills in these sciences the more we can verify. We will never verify whether God spoke to Abraham and whether he commanded him to slay isaac. We will never verify that Moses was given the 10 commandments by God. We will never verify that Jesus was the Son of God and died and was ressurected. We can verify the tribes, cities, names of rulers, etc where these stories took place. When the BoM comes even halfway as verifiable as the Bible I'll consider your claims of doctrine etc. But for now it appears the BoM was invented out of thin air. Sorry. My belief.

the BOM | 4:26 p.m. May 30, 2008

The BOM is one of the cornerstones of our faith...the major cornerstone and what hold our faith is that Jesus Christ is our Redeemer and the Only begotten son. And I don't think that the fact that we believe in the Nephites and Laminates the only difference in our religion. There is the fact that we believe that Heavely Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are three seperate beings, we believe that when we are baptized it is at a proper age where we know the difference between right and wrong, we believe that we there is modern revelations, and we believe that families will be together forever through the plan of salvation. There are many other things that are different but that would take more time then what I have. Hope taht helps "What is the Book of Mormon".

Thomas | 4:33 p.m. May 30, 2008

"Enough" -- What would constitute "proof" to me that the Book of Mormon was what it says it is?

Maybe the kind of unmistakeable spiritual witness people talk about -- assuming it's truly unmistakable. Unfortunately, I've heard enough people talk weepingly of "feeling the Spririt" when they hear demonstrably false faith-promoting rumors to know that what one Mormon thinks is "unmistakable" isn't necessarily so.

Maybe there is such an unmistakable mystical witness out there, that I could be confident isn't just my mind getting excited about something I'm familiar with and want to be true. All I know is that I haven't experienced any such thing.

As for scientific evidence, obviously, the more evidence there might be found of an ancient Hebrew-influenced, Iron Age civilization in the New World, the better the Book of Mormon looks. At some point, that alone might be enough to shift the weight of the evidence. But *really* unambiguous proof would require the discovery of authentic writings referencing Book of Mormon names or stories -- the proverbial "Zarahemla Boulevard" street sign.

Two ?'s | 4:50 p.m. May 30, 2008

So many insist that God wants us to accept the Book of Mormon on "faith" and not by knowledge.

For them I have two questions:
1) Why would God give us the ability to recognize facts, and then insist that we ignore them?

2) If you ï¿½knowï¿½ the Church is true (or the Book of Mormon), why would you need faith?

Alex | 5:01 p.m. May 30, 2008

Chris Plummer and others:

"Joseph Smith found the plates in New York, and says the events unfolded there. "

One thing you are missing is the fact that a few years after Joseph Smith was reported to have said that the events unfolded in North America (it would make sense, since that is where the plates were to be found), a book came out about the ruins in Central America, or some such. In a periodical at the time, Joseph offered commentary to the effect that this could perhaps be the area where the Nephite and Lamanite civilization could be. Apparently, Joseph Smith knew as little about the geography that was being described in the Book of Mormon as we do, and yet in the Book of Mormon we find a geography that is reasonably consistent with Central America. But he didn't know that, and yet he wrote about the geography anyway. Interesting.

wasatchpowder | 5:15 p.m. May 30, 2008

This is only part one of a series. He hasn't even presented all of his research yet and the closed minded people here have already rejected his theory.

He has archaeological findings and quotes from Joseph Smith in his research which links his theory with the BOM. He has more research linking the Nephites to the Great Lakes than any existing research linking them to Central America.

Whether he is right or not, no one knows, but I found his theory compelling and makes more sense to me than the Central America theory.

Fredd | 5:22 p.m. May 30, 2008

Alex, don't you see, he didn't know about the geography because he didn't write the book. Saying he identified all these items he didn't know about has no bearing because he plagarised the account. That's the non believer reaction to your statement. I go back to the original premise of this story. An admittedly biased man dismisses the science that does not support his bias and accepts and twists those aspects of the science that support his bias. Its the typical defense I have been reading for a while. I think if your church gives you comfort embrace it. But don't try to convince me its true. And don't send your missionary armies out to the "mission field" to deceive me. That's the crux of the "anti" sentiment I think.

Anonymous | 5:38 p.m. May 30, 2008

To Princton Graduate:

Who said the Jaredites had metal weapons and armaments?

IF people built civilization they use materials most available and easily available, if it was north america that would be wood, or mounds of dirt. How much evidence would be left of those several thousand years later.

Also populations shift. Just becasue they european DNA is found in the great lakes region now does not mean that was where they started, perhaps they started somewhere warm like southern part of north america?

That would satisfy everything I think.

As for DNA of all the groups the BOM claims most if no all were killed off. The majority of the survivors were of the group that had the skin changed darker.

More importantly most people do not understand DNA, you have to know what markers to look for.

We know to look for the levite marker in africa.

But what is marker in the DNA of The jaredites? Which were around the time of tower of bable. And probably all killed off.

The Mulikites?
The Lehi and family? We know through ephaim and his son mannaseh
Ismael and family?
zoram?

How many of these people were left and unchanged?

Experts?? | 6:07 p.m. May 30, 2008

Princeton Graduate--you indicate there is no anthropological evidence of the Jaredites. Did you not learn in your Princeton classes of the Olmec civilization in Central America? The pre-Olmec civilization emerged right around the time the Jaredites would have come to the Americas...and the civilization disappeared several hundred years before Christ (right around the time they would have existed according to the Book of Mormon). Here's the interesting part, the discovery of the first colossal stone head characteristic of the Olmec civilization was in 1858--28 years after the Book of Mormon was published.

Does this mean the Olmecs were the Jaredites or were affiliated with the Jaredites?? I don't know, nor will we ever know definitively, but no evidence of a distinct group of people in the America's during this time?

Copy desk | 6:34 p.m. May 30, 2008

"If he is right, most theories about where the Book of Mormon took place are off by about 2000 miles."

Did you mean 2,000 miles, or miles from the year 2000. I are confused.

David R | 7:00 p.m. May 30, 2008

There is actually a significant amount of evidence supporting Rod Meldrum's theory. Don't just dismiss it without reviewing it. This article didn't have very much in it, but Meldrum's 4 hour DVD had more. I also found more in my own studies into the mound builder people. Also don't assume that his theory doesn't fit the Book of Mormon's internal requirements -- it actually seems to fit better than Central America once you look at all of the information Meldrum provides.

Open Minded | 7:03 p.m. May 30, 2008

I find it interesting the fact that people continue to rely on man for a trueth. Would it not be better to rely on a Prophet of God and his teachings.

I doubt any modern day man could know more about the peoples of the Book of Mormon than Joseph Smith. He was schooled and taught by a Nephite. If he refered to North America as the Land of the Nephites who would you believe, discovering Scientists or a man who new the Nephites.

About the Climate. Is Florida a part of North America and could it be hot in a city there during the new year.

The real purose | 7:24 p.m. May 30, 2008

I think those of us who are LDS are forgetting what the Book of Mormon is supposed to be about. It is not about trying to identify where the Book of Mormon took place or where the cities were located or anything about the culture. If the Lord would have intended that, he would have included more specific information. All we need to do to find out its purpose is to read the introductory page. At the end of it you will come across an interesting admonition. It there are faults in the book, they are the mistakes of men and we should not be condemning its teachings because of that. Bottom line, donï¿½t let the naysayers detract from the purpose of the book.

Sceince and Religion | 7:33 p.m. May 30, 2008

I look forward to the day when there will be neither false scientific theories or false religious doctrines on the earth. When that day comes, religion and science will be the same-all truth in one great whole! Until that day comes, we need faith, and courage to live the truths we know and cautious acceptance of some science theories as not all modern science turns out to be correct. DNA recearch is a new science. We should remember what we now know about every science will change with new discoveries still in the future. My faith and my testimony teachs me that someday, we will know and understand much, much more about DNA and on that day, the B of M. and DNA will be in complete harmony. That day is not today! Faith, study and prayer still apply! I loved this article and it just confirms my point.

rw | 7:41 p.m. May 30, 2008

Sooner or later God always plants His evidence first and allowsa long period of faith to develop before man learns that His physical evidence has been there all the time.

Christopher Hitchens | 7:49 p.m. May 30, 2008

"Whatever can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

William | 8:28 p.m. May 30, 2008

Princeton Graduate you're wrong about artifacts. See if you can find the book by Delbert W. Curtis, "Christ in North America," where he relates how Harvey Rice described "Human bones of gigantic proportions. Frontenac and other early explorers to the Great Lake Region found evidence of an extinct civilization. The mound builder civilization covered north America, who were they? Could they have been Nephites and Lamanites? You don't know. But they covered the land from the Gulf of Mexico to the great Lakes area.

Henry Drummond | 9:44 p.m. May 30, 2008

I've never understood this fascination with disproving DNA evidence. There have been no shortage of places where science comes to very different conclusions than religion. It seems that those who try to make science and religion agree are not being true to either science or their religion.

I don't believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon but I still find value in it as a morality tale and choose not to worry about how it was written. Now if an agnostic like me can do that, why can't the supposed true believers do that?

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.