Comments about ‘MormonTimes.com: DNA may help family research, but it won't prove or disprove Book of Mormon’

DNA is only correct so long as it doesn't disprove the BOM. When DNA shows that Native Indians are actually descendents of Asians, having crossed the Bering land bridge, and not the Hebrews we go into full throttle denial of science. But if it shows that Joseph Smith is Irish and not English, we readily accept the information.

Jesus taught in parables, why can't we believe in the truth of the BOM even if it is not literal but figurative truth?

DNA Lady has it partly correct. The BOM has been pushed and sold as literal truth. But the durn scientists showed up with their DNA accuracy and blew it out of the water. So the next logical step of the true believer is to say it is figurative.

DNA may not prove the BofM but it certainly adds to a long list of collective evidence.

.
BYU needs to bring in DNA scientists that are 'outside' non-LDS and non-BYU staff. Unfortunately, there is a fear in doing, that.
.
National Geographic dedicated an issue to studing
DNA testing throughout the tribal world with great success. CAPTION: "We know they dominated sea trade in the Mediterranean for 3,000 years. Now DNA testing and recent archaeological finds are revealing just what the Phoenician legacy meant to the ancient worldand to our own."
Now, does this sound like scientists in field of DNA are having a problem? Or, is there a problem with the Book of Mormon?
.

DNA Lady brings up a good point. Apologists will attempt to discredit DNA if it doesn't match the story, but when it does then they love the science.
Can't have it both ways, so what's it going to be?
The fact is, native Americans are not of Hebrew descent and generations of leaders have been wrong about telling that story.

The DNA evidence couldn't be more clear about the origins of Native Americans, yet apologists can still say with a straight face that it can't be used as a valid argument to test the accuracy of the BoM.

Sigh.

"No known [DNA] reference sample" exists of the much-discussed Book of Mormon peoples? From the time I was a child through my mission in Mexico and Central America just 25 years ago, I was repeatedly told that "Lamanites" like myself were direct, bodily descendants of Lehi. This has been proudly and insistently taught by leaders of the LDS Church until quite recently.

Kind of an unnecessary blanket statement to make, isn't it? If you believe in what the BOM says, go with it on faith and don't worry about DNA. If you have to go into a preemptive denial, I have to wonder why.

You are about 3 years behind on the DNA evidence issue. There have been numerous studies (by non-LDS research teams) that now call into question that "land bridge" theory of initial population for the Americas. While some residents possibly came that way, there is additional research that supports the arrival of a small number of people coming from the Middle East.

The fact is, DNA science can neither prove nor disprove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

I am sort of active, I take my kids to church, not every Sunday, haven't been to Temple in years, etc. I resent being treated like a moron just because I am Mormon. DNA analysis is either useful or it isn't.

Some of the claims in BoM seem absurd to modern readers. I am entirely content to read the BoM as a parable, but the Church continues to mock me by insisting on its scientific truth.

Mr. Butler is right about the DNA evidence not "proving" the BOM as true or false. But, the devil is in the details not mentioned in the article. For instance, early LDS leaders such as Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and others did make statements to the effect that the native Americans were "Lamanites". If so, and this was after the die off from disease mentioned in the article, we would expect to find something in the DNA that matches middle eastern people, but we don't. Now, that does not disprove the BOM but wouldn't we all agree that it would be nice if the reverse were true--that DNA from native Americans did show a link to middle eastern people? But it does not. So we're left with faith, again.

Interestingly, there are other problems unrelated to DNA that make the BOM historicity problematic. See the book compiled by Brigham Madsen but written (never published during his lifetime) by LDS General Authority BH Roberts. The book is titled "Studies of the Book of Mormon" and is available to order on line or thru libraries. It is interesting because of who wrote it and the conclusions he came to.

.
The Church has to insist it scientific truth !
All the Prophet, by revelation,(particularly, Joseph Smith states that the indians in the Americas are descendence of the Hebrews. If you don't believe the prophets of the LDS Church on this issue, then you can't trust its teachings on other issues, much less the BoM.
Too much hypocrasy in this Church !!!
.

DNA is not likely to change anyone's views regarding the Book of Mormon one way or the other. It will, however, have a dramatic influence on archaeology, and has done that already, casting serious doubt on isolationist theories as it is becoming evident that the Native American people were the result of several series of migratory events rather than a single incident.

I am not a scientist but have read a number of articles and studies written by DNA scientists, including this one. I totally believe what these scientists say--that is that DNA can neither prove nor disprove the Book of Mormon. DNA of small groups, when contributed to a larger population, will disappear within a few generations. It, therefore, can't be tracked.

Did you know that different Jewish groups throughout the world CANNOT be connected through DNA. Even though it is known that they have been Jewish for many generations, they cannot be genetically linked. That should give you some idea of how complex the DNA issue is. There are also other issues including the movements of various populations over thousands years, etc.

Both religion and science deal in PARTIAL knowledge. Don't lose faith in the things you know to be true because of the partial knowledge that is currently available through scientific studies.

The truth of the Book of Mormon can only be known through a witness from the spirit. That is how I know it to be true and that is how any sincere person can also know it.

I base my faith on scientific research. It is really convenient because each month as new research is published I can change what I believe in (keeps me on my toes).

Oh ye of little faith. . . etc. How oft would I have gathered you but ye would not. Do all of you who are commenting really think that a philosophy of "if I can't prove it with science I can't believe it" will ever have the power of salvation?? Don't you know anything about God's dealing with His children or are you going to live the rest of your lives ever learning and never coming to a knowledge of the truth?

The article misses the fact that there's a very recent discovery of middle eastern DNA in South America. That story was reported here in the Deseret News.

The fact is that because the science isn't complete - the samples aren't comprehensive or rigorous, the recent discovery doesn't prove anything.

DNA-vs-BoM are like comparing apples and lugnuts. Only people who don't truly understand the science attempt the comparison.

Sort of like doing radio carbon dating of bat quano -- it is done, and discussed by "experts," but not by anyone with a real clue.

Both cases SOUND logical, but only to those who don't understand the science behind the testing. Once you truly understand the test, and it's limitations, then the topic of DNA testing for BoM proof is as silly and inane as rcd'ing bat guano.

The alleged scientists that doubt the land bridge, are these the same scientists that don't believe in evolution or are diehard believers in a flat-earth by chance?

Jesus taught in Parables, so why could the BOM be yet another example? The burning in my bosom tells me that J.S. was not divinely inspired when he said that it was literal. But the church tells me that "when the prophet has spoken the thinking has been done." What to believe, oh what to believe. Simple, go with Occam's Razor with the most likely scenario being the most likely to occur.

The bottom line, as always, is that there is nothing in the DNA that precludes a group coming over from the middle east and there is nothing in the Book of Mormon that precludes groups coming over from Asia. We are left where we started. I would like to know how Joseph Smith could have known that there was a place in what is now Saudi Arabia called Nahom, however. Since this wasn't known until recently, this was quite a feat.