Reader comments
MormonTimes.com: DNA may help family research, but it won't prove or disprove Book of Mormon
245 comments | Read story
Elephants | 10:52 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
There is evidence of elephants in Mesoamerica in ancient picto-graphs:
Google: "elephant murals mesoamerica" and click on the first hit and you will see ancient pictographs of elephants in Mesoamerica.
How could Mayans carve elephants if they did not exist there?
Google: "elephant murals mesoamerica" and click on the first hit and you will see ancient pictographs of elephants in Mesoamerica.
How could Mayans carve elephants if they did not exist there?
Ernest T. Bass | 11:00 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Nice Eyring quote. My follow-up question is: Why does truth keep changing?
Comments continue below
Calvin Hobbes | 11:03 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Why dont the current inspired leaders clear this up for us?
From Smith to Young, we had outspoken inspiration, who would have make several comments to clear this up (or further confuse us).
This is a cloudy issue and we need the leaders to give us guidance.
From Smith to Young, we had outspoken inspiration, who would have make several comments to clear this up (or further confuse us).
This is a cloudy issue and we need the leaders to give us guidance.
JT Browning | 11:23 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
As a former Latter-day Saint who is now studying theology at a Bible College,
I've kept track over the last few years of this ongoing debate over the
Book of Mormon vs. the Bible. I've seen some well-made videos on this
topic, as well as on the DNA issue. I've done research into the
archeological evidence for the Bible versus the seeming lack thereof for the
Book of Mormon. Granted, there is overwhelming evidence for the Bible in
archeology and anthropology, and there is precious little for the Book of
Mormon. That being said, I look at how many issues and incidents in the Bible,
especially the Old Testament, have no evdidence at all for their authenticity or
existence. Most of the major miracles of the OT (Creation, the Flood, the
plagues of Egypt and the crossing of the Red Sea) cannot be proven by any
physical evidence. There is not a lot of extra-biblical evidence for much of
what happens in the OT. So why do we believe it? In a word, faith, which is
called a gift from God. Can we not allow for the book of Mormon to also be taken
on faith?
SlowS | 11:35 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Like I suspect, most commentaries here are from LDS. We were taught differently
than they teach today. The truth comes out. Sometimes it's hard to face.
Sheesh! | 11:42 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Talk about "Having your cake and eating it too!"
Let's use DNA science to prove someone did a crime or not, convict them and send them to the electric chair... on the basis of DNA evidence.
Let's use DNA to ascertain if a person is the father/mother of a child or not and stand by that evidence as far as legal and/or social implications are concerned.
Let's use DNA to ascertain if a disease is this or that or if it shows up specifically in certain groups of people somewhere in the world and have it accepted both scientifically and by the lay public.
Let's use DNA to ascertain if certain indigenous groups in the Americas have genetic links to the Orient or not... but wait!...
... if those DNA tests don't ascertain that the genetic links go back to the middle-east, then suddently DNA isn't a valid indicator for disproving the long held-to notion asserted in a religious text...
Fact is, there is so much lateral and crossing DNA evidence from numerous angles clearly showing that BofM assertions for origins of indigenous Americas people is NOT the middle east, but more oriental instead.
Not one DNA study supports BofB!
Let's use DNA science to prove someone did a crime or not, convict them and send them to the electric chair... on the basis of DNA evidence.
Let's use DNA to ascertain if a person is the father/mother of a child or not and stand by that evidence as far as legal and/or social implications are concerned.
Let's use DNA to ascertain if a disease is this or that or if it shows up specifically in certain groups of people somewhere in the world and have it accepted both scientifically and by the lay public.
Let's use DNA to ascertain if certain indigenous groups in the Americas have genetic links to the Orient or not... but wait!...
... if those DNA tests don't ascertain that the genetic links go back to the middle-east, then suddently DNA isn't a valid indicator for disproving the long held-to notion asserted in a religious text...
Fact is, there is so much lateral and crossing DNA evidence from numerous angles clearly showing that BofM assertions for origins of indigenous Americas people is NOT the middle east, but more oriental instead.
Not one DNA study supports BofB!
SlowS | 11:43 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Publish this direct quote from Spencer W. Kimball, published in the Ensign:
"Not until the revelations of Joseph Smith, bringing forth the Book of Mormon, did any one know of these migrants. It was not known before, but now the question is fully answered. Now the Lamanites number about sixty million; they are in all of the states of America from Tierra del Fuego all the way up to Point Barrows, and they are in nearly all the islands of the sea from Hawaii south to southern New Zealand. The Church is deeply interested in all Lamanites because of these revelations and because of this great Book of Mormon, their history that was written on plates of gold and deposited in the hill. The translation by the Prophet Joseph Smith revealed a running history for one thousand years�six hundred years before Christ until four hundred after Christ�a history of these great people who occupied this land for that thousand years. Then for the next fourteen hundred years, they lost much of their high culture. The descendants of this mighty people were called Indians by Columbus in 1492 when he found them here."
"Not until the revelations of Joseph Smith, bringing forth the Book of Mormon, did any one know of these migrants. It was not known before, but now the question is fully answered. Now the Lamanites number about sixty million; they are in all of the states of America from Tierra del Fuego all the way up to Point Barrows, and they are in nearly all the islands of the sea from Hawaii south to southern New Zealand. The Church is deeply interested in all Lamanites because of these revelations and because of this great Book of Mormon, their history that was written on plates of gold and deposited in the hill. The translation by the Prophet Joseph Smith revealed a running history for one thousand years�six hundred years before Christ until four hundred after Christ�a history of these great people who occupied this land for that thousand years. Then for the next fourteen hundred years, they lost much of their high culture. The descendants of this mighty people were called Indians by Columbus in 1492 when he found them here."
Robert | 12:02 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
I follow this with great interest. The truth is that science is ever changing.
Back in the 30s the universe was 2 billion years old, then 6, then 8, then 10,
now they are saying 14 billion years. Years ago Dinos were killed by volcanos,
and various other, then we have impact events (which I personally believe), now
some in science are claiming that impact events can't explain it. Back in
the 1890s it was global cooling according to science, then it switched to
warming in the 40s and 50s, then it went back to global cooling in the 70s, then
it was warming from 89 through present. Now science is telling us that we are
headed into a mini ice age blah blah. The list goes on and on.
The point is don't quit your day job on the basis of a scientific pronouncement...it will be obsolete junk in 3-10 years with some new notion, a new theory ALL BASED UPON SO CALLED SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. Todays so called scientific studies and evidence will be tomorrows discredited science.
Book of Mormon DNA questions. YAWN It doesn't affect my faith one way or the other.
The point is don't quit your day job on the basis of a scientific pronouncement...it will be obsolete junk in 3-10 years with some new notion, a new theory ALL BASED UPON SO CALLED SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. Todays so called scientific studies and evidence will be tomorrows discredited science.
Book of Mormon DNA questions. YAWN It doesn't affect my faith one way or the other.
JT Browning | 12:06 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
CATS:RE: "there is very little archaeological evidence that supports the
Bible." I BEG to differ...In fact there is a plethora of evidence proving
the existence of many places, people, and things that are desribed in the Bible;
this evidence is out there for all to see. All one has to do is to go to the
Holy Land, and see for yourself the very places mentioned in the Bible, many of
which are thousands of years old. While not discounting the need for the gift of
faith to believe in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon, one must indeed be
cautious not to ignore or minimize the mountains of evidence that actually
exists (and is still growing) for the Bible. As for the Book of Mormon and a
relative scarcity of hard evidence, I would say that the BOM has been around for
only 178 years; evidence may yet be forthcoming. Nevertheless,it does no one
any good to underestimate the actual evidence that in fact does exist for the
Bible. After all, within the LDS Church, the BOM is desribed as a companion
Scripture to the Bible, not superior to the Bible.
To John Pack Lambert | 12:14 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
@ 10:11:
But there is ample archeological evidence that the Philistines existed, even if we can't find their chariots.
The is no archeological evidence that the Nephites existed. There is archeological evidence that the Nephites didn't exist in a manner described in a simple literal reading of the text (no horses, no millions of people dying around Cumorah, etc).
But there is ample archeological evidence that the Philistines existed, even if we can't find their chariots.
The is no archeological evidence that the Nephites existed. There is archeological evidence that the Nephites didn't exist in a manner described in a simple literal reading of the text (no horses, no millions of people dying around Cumorah, etc).
KM | 12:16 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Can we take a look at the gold plates and clear this up? Maybe some of this
stuff was a mistranslation. Where do they keep the plates now, so we can have
modern scholars do a translation?
Timothy | 12:19 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
I think LDS have their own set of made up rules about this. No need to argue
with the brainwashed.
DNA is real folks. Go to school and learn for yourselves.
DNA is real folks. Go to school and learn for yourselves.
Hoosier Coug | 12:35 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
The issue I see here is a question of fully-tested science. There have been
some who compare DNA science in regards to the origins of Native Americans as if
it is a resolved conclusion that science has proven just as conclusively as the
"theory" that the earth revolves around the sun.
I along with most Mormons I know believe in religion and science. To better understand the universe is to better understand God.
We also understand that there are gaps that exist in science; no scientist today -- no matter the field -- has all relevant information. We are constantly discovering new insights. It is an exciting world we live in today.
Due to the nature of Archeology, the gaps are enormous.
Due to the large span of time from the founding of the Americas to today, the "proof" that the Book of Mormon is false is full of gaps.
With that said, I cannot wait to see what research and information the future in these sciences will bring.
I along with most Mormons I know believe in religion and science. To better understand the universe is to better understand God.
We also understand that there are gaps that exist in science; no scientist today -- no matter the field -- has all relevant information. We are constantly discovering new insights. It is an exciting world we live in today.
Due to the nature of Archeology, the gaps are enormous.
Due to the large span of time from the founding of the Americas to today, the "proof" that the Book of Mormon is false is full of gaps.
With that said, I cannot wait to see what research and information the future in these sciences will bring.
Fred | 12:54 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Right, but... | 8:03 a.m.:
"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."
What's more, Joseph Smith moved the church to the Missouri frontier to better interface with the Indians to bring the gospel to them since they were considered to be direct Lamanite descendants.
"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."
What's more, Joseph Smith moved the church to the Missouri frontier to better interface with the Indians to bring the gospel to them since they were considered to be direct Lamanite descendants.
Reality, or Fairy Tales? | 1:01 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
The Christian Bible is filled with historical and scientific impossibilities and
is largely devoid of objective evidence as to its being based in reality.
The Bible may have utility as a source for _some_ morality lessons, but beyond that it has no connection with reality.
The BoM has zero historical, scientific or archeological evidence to support it and lots of historical evidence to support the conclusion that it is entirely the work of JS's imagination.
If you disagree with that, then please begin offering hard evidence (keep your testimonies to yourselves, they're not evidence of truth) in support of your belief. Otherwise, you folks are arguing about what color the tooth fairy's sholaces are.
The Bible may have utility as a source for _some_ morality lessons, but beyond that it has no connection with reality.
The BoM has zero historical, scientific or archeological evidence to support it and lots of historical evidence to support the conclusion that it is entirely the work of JS's imagination.
If you disagree with that, then please begin offering hard evidence (keep your testimonies to yourselves, they're not evidence of truth) in support of your belief. Otherwise, you folks are arguing about what color the tooth fairy's sholaces are.
wrz | 1:18 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
kenny | 10:27 a.m.:
"Latter Day Saints read Moroni 10:4-5 then proceed to prove the BOM by science. The only real tool we have in knowing of its truth is in Moroni 10:4-5."
Knowledge comes through the five senses. Faith by an uncertain and sometimes fleeting feeling. Knowledge always trumps faith. Smith got his superior knowledge of God's existence by visual contact.
"Latter Day Saints read Moroni 10:4-5 then proceed to prove the BOM by science. The only real tool we have in knowing of its truth is in Moroni 10:4-5."
Knowledge comes through the five senses. Faith by an uncertain and sometimes fleeting feeling. Knowledge always trumps faith. Smith got his superior knowledge of God's existence by visual contact.
Archeology | 1:29 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
To those of you who say there isn't substantive archaeological evidence to
support the Book of Mormon, all I have to say is that you have not studied the
subject. Or if you have, you only studied anti-Mormon slanted evidence. There is
a mountain of supportive evidence by LDS and non-LDS sources.
SL Cabbie | 1:36 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Let me welcome those new to these discussions to the intellectual shell game of
Mormon apologetics. Unfortunately, space constraints may limit my comments on
the subject; so much has been put forth that is at odds with peer-reviewed
science it is difficult to determine which bit of nonsense to debunk, and
there's always the danger of appearing rude for quashing someone's
freshly minted whopper.
Here's a sample: "To DNA Lady" claims, "You are about 3 years behind on the DNA evidence issue... Numerous studies... call into question that "land bridge" theory of initial population for the Americas."
This is utter balderdash. I would refer the author to last year's University of Michigan study giving strong evidence that a population of around 70 individuals in the Bering Strait area were the likely ancestors of all pre-Columbian North Americans.
The truth is a Siberian people--the Altai--possesses mtDNA closely related to AmeriInd DNA (all five haplogroups)); the law of parsimony suggests an obvious conclusion. Whether some migrated via costal routes is irrelevant.
And "Additional research . . . supports a small number coming from the Middle East" is similarly disingenuous. Nothing credible showing pre-Columbian contact has been put forth by any peer-reviewed groups.
Here's a sample: "To DNA Lady" claims, "You are about 3 years behind on the DNA evidence issue... Numerous studies... call into question that "land bridge" theory of initial population for the Americas."
This is utter balderdash. I would refer the author to last year's University of Michigan study giving strong evidence that a population of around 70 individuals in the Bering Strait area were the likely ancestors of all pre-Columbian North Americans.
The truth is a Siberian people--the Altai--possesses mtDNA closely related to AmeriInd DNA (all five haplogroups)); the law of parsimony suggests an obvious conclusion. Whether some migrated via costal routes is irrelevant.
And "Additional research . . . supports a small number coming from the Middle East" is similarly disingenuous. Nothing credible showing pre-Columbian contact has been put forth by any peer-reviewed groups.
Principally Wrong | 1:33 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
The Book of Mormon is "not descriptive enough (regarding ancestral origin)
to provide definitive calibration points with which to make confident scientific
conclusions."
The problem is with the Book of Mormon, not the science.
But the ambiguity of the Book of Mormon regarding ancestral origins didn't stop many "prophets, seers, and revelators" from declaring repeatedly for over 100 years that "the Lamanites... are the PRINCIPAL ancestors of the American Indians." (Book of Mormon|Preface Introduction:2)!!!
These claims were never changed do to revelation or inspiration or anything but DNA science! What happened to the clairvoyant powers, the revelation from God, the magical inspiration of these leaders for over a century before DNA science came along?!
The problem is with the Book of Mormon, not the science.
But the ambiguity of the Book of Mormon regarding ancestral origins didn't stop many "prophets, seers, and revelators" from declaring repeatedly for over 100 years that "the Lamanites... are the PRINCIPAL ancestors of the American Indians." (Book of Mormon|Preface Introduction:2)!!!
These claims were never changed do to revelation or inspiration or anything but DNA science! What happened to the clairvoyant powers, the revelation from God, the magical inspiration of these leaders for over a century before DNA science came along?!
FactChecker | 1:44 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
I challenge anyone here to give me the name of even one non- Mormon
�DNA Scientist� who believes that the
native people of the Americas are descendents of middle eastern immigrants.
It�s baloney to say that DNA evidence does not disprove the Book of Mormon. Show us a link to any non- Mormon researcher who makes that claim�
It�s baloney to say that DNA evidence does not disprove the Book of Mormon. Show us a link to any non- Mormon researcher who makes that claim�
Thomas | 1:51 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
JT Browning: I believe it's an abuse of the concept of "faith"
to have "faith" in things which are capable of being evaluated by
ordinary evidence and reason.
God's existence and nature cannot be discerned or proven -- or disproven -- by science and reason. You need to exercise faith to *presume* that God exists, in the absence of any proper evidence pro or con. It is in fact a choice to believe in something that has basically a 50-50 chance of being true.
On the other hand, a person can't have "faith" that the Great Salt Lake is not salty. There is no excuse not to answer the question by going over to the stinky beach and taking a sip. A person who "chose to believe" that he was drinking fresh water would be dishonest -- and if he persisted in his folly, he'd poison himself.
If faith is just an arbitrary choice, why shouldn't we choose to have faith that Mohammed was the last true messenger of God? Or that God is a randy old thunderbolt-chucking man who lives on Mount Olympus?
So science where science can answer, and faith where only faith can operate.
God's existence and nature cannot be discerned or proven -- or disproven -- by science and reason. You need to exercise faith to *presume* that God exists, in the absence of any proper evidence pro or con. It is in fact a choice to believe in something that has basically a 50-50 chance of being true.
On the other hand, a person can't have "faith" that the Great Salt Lake is not salty. There is no excuse not to answer the question by going over to the stinky beach and taking a sip. A person who "chose to believe" that he was drinking fresh water would be dishonest -- and if he persisted in his folly, he'd poison himself.
If faith is just an arbitrary choice, why shouldn't we choose to have faith that Mohammed was the last true messenger of God? Or that God is a randy old thunderbolt-chucking man who lives on Mount Olympus?
So science where science can answer, and faith where only faith can operate.
Sara | 1:52 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Here is a quote from Spencer W. Kimball regarding the Nephites and Lamanites:
"About twenty-five centuries ago, a hardy group left the comforts of a great city, crossed a desert, braved an ocean, and came to the shores of this, their promised land. There were two large families, those of Lehi and Ishmael, who in not many centuries numbered hundreds of millions of people on these two American continents."
- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p. 601
"About twenty-five centuries ago, a hardy group left the comforts of a great city, crossed a desert, braved an ocean, and came to the shores of this, their promised land. There were two large families, those of Lehi and Ishmael, who in not many centuries numbered hundreds of millions of people on these two American continents."
- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p. 601
FactChecker | 1:52 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
to wrote> Not to mention that the BofM purports to be a translation. When it
says "horse" in the text, that is the best association to whatever
"horse" meant in Reformed Egyptian--whatever that is. And, the
specific animal "horse" refers to cannot be concretely determined one
way or the other.
Seeing as how the Mormon church agrees that Joseph Smith stuck his face in a hat and 'viewed' the translation of the BOM in his peep stone -- we've got to expect that God made the words appear on the magic stone.
Why would God offer the word 'horse' rather than the accurate translation? If God knew that the correct translation should be deer (or what-ever) then why did God muddy the water by offering the wrong name for the animal?
Seeing as how the Mormon church agrees that Joseph Smith stuck his face in a hat and 'viewed' the translation of the BOM in his peep stone -- we've got to expect that God made the words appear on the magic stone.
Why would God offer the word 'horse' rather than the accurate translation? If God knew that the correct translation should be deer (or what-ever) then why did God muddy the water by offering the wrong name for the animal?
A. Nony Mouse | 1:59 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
The one thing I remember from a Mormon friend of mine is his telling me that
because he was adopted by someone other than his parents, his Mormon teachings
told him that his DNA was magically changed to match the DNA of his adoptive
mother. Now, since that is completely impossible, why should I think anything a
Mormon says regarding DNA, unless it was scientifically proven, is correct?
Tiny | 2:02 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
I'm appalled!
Some internet guy did DNA on me and told me that i was the descendant of some great white ape. possibly some connections as well to that of Bigfoot.
Some internet guy did DNA on me and told me that i was the descendant of some great white ape. possibly some connections as well to that of Bigfoot.
David Farnsworth | 2:10 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
As usual, all these armchair (PC-bound) critics have failed to pay attention to
what John Butler actually said. Read the article again (or better yet, go online
and read in detail what Butler has said in the past on this topic), and then
come back with some informed commentary, instead of mere BofM bashing.
SonoIo | 2:21 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
To those who want actual places to associate with modern day revelation and
scripture:
Please read the Doctrine And Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. In that book, you will find God's revelations to real people that existed. The city of Nauvoo is mentioned and we know that Nauvoo exists today. Along with places such as Ohio, South Carolina, New York, etc. Along with real people are mentioned in these revelations such as Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Emma Smith, Sidney Rigdon, etc.
Since many skeptics of the Book of Mormon say that they will believe when there is physical evidence, then using that logic, I would assume you would be full believers in the book of scripture called the Doctrine And Covenants, since every place and person named in that book can be verified by existing places and history books.
By the way, good evidence for the Book of Mormon does exist. Places such as Nahom, Bountiful, Lehi's trail have been found and verified. Literary evidence is rarely talked about by critics such as King Benjamin's speech as an ancient text, Mulek son of King Zedekiah, and many others.
Please read the Doctrine And Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. In that book, you will find God's revelations to real people that existed. The city of Nauvoo is mentioned and we know that Nauvoo exists today. Along with places such as Ohio, South Carolina, New York, etc. Along with real people are mentioned in these revelations such as Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Emma Smith, Sidney Rigdon, etc.
Since many skeptics of the Book of Mormon say that they will believe when there is physical evidence, then using that logic, I would assume you would be full believers in the book of scripture called the Doctrine And Covenants, since every place and person named in that book can be verified by existing places and history books.
By the way, good evidence for the Book of Mormon does exist. Places such as Nahom, Bountiful, Lehi's trail have been found and verified. Literary evidence is rarely talked about by critics such as King Benjamin's speech as an ancient text, Mulek son of King Zedekiah, and many others.
To Timothy | 2:27 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
In order to make scientific conclusions about the Book of Mormon, one must be an
expert in DNA science AND the Book of Mormon. Unfortunately, the non-Mormon
experts in DNA science are not experts in the Book of Mormon, therefore their
"conclusions" are not convincing to knowledgeable Mormons.
Perhaps you can learn this for yourself.
Perhaps you can learn this for yourself.
Freddie | 2:31 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Trina | 10:38 a.m.:
"I have yet to see any archeological evidence from the new world to support the Book of Mormon."
The BofM describes mounds of dirt thrown up around cities for defense. You can see the mounds of dirt as we speak, in some of the ruins in the Yucatan.
"I have yet to see any archeological evidence from the new world to support the Book of Mormon."
The BofM describes mounds of dirt thrown up around cities for defense. You can see the mounds of dirt as we speak, in some of the ruins in the Yucatan.
Anger | 2:47 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Get ready for a lot of anger from the Anti-Mormons.
Mitt Romney is looking more and more like the VP. They're thinking, "we've got to stop this guy, he's going to turn Mormonism into a mainstream religion!".
Mitt Romney is looking more and more like the VP. They're thinking, "we've got to stop this guy, he's going to turn Mormonism into a mainstream religion!".
Pass on | 3:00 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
the Doctrine and Covenants. It always frightened me as a kid. It reads very
schizophrenic. At least the Book of Mormon has a steady voice throughout, and
follows cycles.
Ernest T. Bass | 3:11 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Sonolo:
Where are all these locations?
Please provide some scholarly evidence, done by real archeologists, who have no pre-concieved biases.
Ferguson, the archeologist, found nothing to match the book of Mormon and lost his faith in it.
Where are all these locations?
Please provide some scholarly evidence, done by real archeologists, who have no pre-concieved biases.
Ferguson, the archeologist, found nothing to match the book of Mormon and lost his faith in it.
BOO! | 3:14 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
To keep advising people that "Any sincere person can have that witness
{from the Holy Ghost) if he or she is willing to ask the Lord" is
nonsense.
Feelings are fine, but they should not be disproved by science. Otherwise they are just superstitions.
Feelings are fine, but they should not be disproved by science. Otherwise they are just superstitions.
Zadruga Guy | 3:21 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
To Principally Wrong:
Sorry to tell you this, but the Preface to the Book of Mormon is not scripture. Only the Book of Mormon itself is. Therefore, it doesn't matter what the Preface said (past tense) about the origins of the American Indians relative to the Lamanites. After all, one of the Articles of Faith says, in part, that we believe that God will "yet reveal many great and important things ..." So what President Kimball or other prophets may have said is outdated, because God has since that time revealed more information to us, via genetics and otherwise, such as via FARMS researchers. That is why God always has a LIVING prophet on the Earth. And I believe that it is God inspiring the scientists (LDS and otherwise) to discover what they are now finding out.
Principally Wrong wrote"
But the ambiguity of the Book of Mormon regarding ancestral origins didn't stop many "prophets, seers, and revelators" from declaring repeatedly for over 100 years that "the Lamanites... are the PRINCIPAL ancestors of the American Indians." (Book of Mormon|Preface Introduction:2)!!!
These claims were never changed do to revelation or inspiration or anything but DNA science!
Sorry to tell you this, but the Preface to the Book of Mormon is not scripture. Only the Book of Mormon itself is. Therefore, it doesn't matter what the Preface said (past tense) about the origins of the American Indians relative to the Lamanites. After all, one of the Articles of Faith says, in part, that we believe that God will "yet reveal many great and important things ..." So what President Kimball or other prophets may have said is outdated, because God has since that time revealed more information to us, via genetics and otherwise, such as via FARMS researchers. That is why God always has a LIVING prophet on the Earth. And I believe that it is God inspiring the scientists (LDS and otherwise) to discover what they are now finding out.
Principally Wrong wrote"
But the ambiguity of the Book of Mormon regarding ancestral origins didn't stop many "prophets, seers, and revelators" from declaring repeatedly for over 100 years that "the Lamanites... are the PRINCIPAL ancestors of the American Indians." (Book of Mormon|Preface Introduction:2)!!!
These claims were never changed do to revelation or inspiration or anything but DNA science!
Truthseeker | 3:27 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
I sincerely asked for a witness of the Book of Mormon and did not receive one.
So that, and the abundance of evidence against it being a historical book, leads
me to conclude it is fiction.
Richard Nibbler | 3:42 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
The DNA subject is viable.
It disproves the Book Of Mormon completely based on scientific fact.
What else is there to sa?
It disproves the Book Of Mormon completely based on scientific fact.
What else is there to sa?
FACT | 3:50 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
To 2:27
In Timothy's defense----I KNOW----take it or leave it. Makes no difference to the rest of us what you want to believe. Certainly we do Not care about your dream world.
In Timothy's defense----I KNOW----take it or leave it. Makes no difference to the rest of us what you want to believe. Certainly we do Not care about your dream world.
SonoIo | 4:11 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
I have read the Book of Mormon many times. I have received an undeniable witness
from the Holy Spirit of its truthfulness. That, combined with evidence for its
authenticity has caused me to conclude that it is indeed what it claims to be:
the Word of God.
If you want more explanations of its evidence (not 'proof'), please visit the Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board (MADB), but do pray about it also.
If somebody is not convinced of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, that is fine with me. But when people show up and say there is NO evidence, or that science has PROVEN the BOM false, they just show that they have not studied the evidences FOR the BOM. This forum is inadequate to have good, scholarly, civilized discussions. Please see MADB for that. Literally VOLUMES about the evidences for the BOM have been written. Some of those volumes DO reference non-Mormon scholars (for example Nahom (NHM) was discovered by German non-Mormons), etc.
See for yourself and make your own conclusions. But don't make claims against something you haven't studied very well.
If you want more explanations of its evidence (not 'proof'), please visit the Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board (MADB), but do pray about it also.
If somebody is not convinced of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, that is fine with me. But when people show up and say there is NO evidence, or that science has PROVEN the BOM false, they just show that they have not studied the evidences FOR the BOM. This forum is inadequate to have good, scholarly, civilized discussions. Please see MADB for that. Literally VOLUMES about the evidences for the BOM have been written. Some of those volumes DO reference non-Mormon scholars (for example Nahom (NHM) was discovered by German non-Mormons), etc.
See for yourself and make your own conclusions. But don't make claims against something you haven't studied very well.
Simon in Oz | 4:18 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
John Butler told hundreds of people ..."that there is no known reference
sample from which to draw any genetic data about people chronicled in the Book
of Mormon."
Asian DNA is a pretty good reference sample. About 99.6% of American Indian DNA is derived from Asia. About 99% of Mesoamerican DNA (Mayans included) is derived from Asia.
And this is not relevant to Book of Mormon historicity? How about honestly facing the truth?
Asian DNA is a pretty good reference sample. About 99.6% of American Indian DNA is derived from Asia. About 99% of Mesoamerican DNA (Mayans included) is derived from Asia.
And this is not relevant to Book of Mormon historicity? How about honestly facing the truth?
Lisa | 4:23 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Good for you! I also have an overwhelming feeling deep within my mind and heart
that DNA is not lying. It thrills me that technology and science has give us
such a gift to work with.
Skeptical | 4:31 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Has anyone visited Newspaper Rock? There are all sorts of animals on that
thing. Guess what, it is a mystery. Some of the items could have been added up
to 600 years ago. Some of it was 2,000 years ago. No one knows for sure. I am
probably the most skeptical person you will meet. I hate evangelism. I even
get unfomfortable in Fast and Testimony meeting. That said, I prayed and I
recieved an answer that the BOM is true. This makes all the difference.
Hey TO: timothy | 4:31 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
There is a reason why the experts in DNA evidence are not LDS experts....want to
guess why?
Thomas | 4:33 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Sonolo: When you say that the Book of Mormon location "Bountiful" has
been "found and verified," I assume you're referring to the
discovery of a place on the southern Arabian coast that isn't *quite* as
barren a desert as the surrounding territory, and could conceivably have at some
point had enough timber growing for Nephi to have built a boat.
Not quite the evidence I'd be comfortable taking to a jury, but I suppose it's as good a straw to grasp at as any.
As for "NHM," so there's a place in Arabia that could correspond to the Book of Mormon "Nahom." Of course, "NHM" might be Nahum, Nuhim, Niham, or any number of variations (since the local language didn't use consonants). What are the odds that in Arabia -- where the language is Semitic, like Hebrew -- there might be *one* placename that corresponds to a Hebrew prophet's name (Nahum) that could have been adapted to the Book of Mormon "Nahom"? I don't know -- but I would frankly be surprised that, with the Semitic flavor of the Book of Mormon names, one or two coincidences would *not* occur.
NHM is interesting, but far from compelling evidence.
Not quite the evidence I'd be comfortable taking to a jury, but I suppose it's as good a straw to grasp at as any.
As for "NHM," so there's a place in Arabia that could correspond to the Book of Mormon "Nahom." Of course, "NHM" might be Nahum, Nuhim, Niham, or any number of variations (since the local language didn't use consonants). What are the odds that in Arabia -- where the language is Semitic, like Hebrew -- there might be *one* placename that corresponds to a Hebrew prophet's name (Nahum) that could have been adapted to the Book of Mormon "Nahom"? I don't know -- but I would frankly be surprised that, with the Semitic flavor of the Book of Mormon names, one or two coincidences would *not* occur.
NHM is interesting, but far from compelling evidence.
Re: Simon in Oz | 4:42 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Good question. There are good answers. Go to Mormon Apologetics and Discussion
Board for all the answers you could want. Just post your question there, and
they will answer it.
Complicated | 4:43 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
I have to chuckle when I read (above) that for some of you, knowledge comes only
through the senses. You seem not to be aware that the Enlightenment happened.
I have to chuckle when I read that for some of you, a scientific study is proof that a question has been settled. As someone who spends his whole life involved in scholarship at the international level, I have to think that you are forgetting how fierce are the controversies surrounding some of the most basic questions, and how they fluctuate.
In fifteen years of studying and teaching ancient civilizations at universities on the East Coast and in the West, and working with colleagues on two continents, I've seen at least two wholesale revolutions of fundamental opinion about the structure and customs of ancient civilization.
I can see all kinds of reasons why there should be few recognizable physical remnants of Book of Mormon culture. But the internal evidence, particularly linguistic and ritual, is formidable.
It is alarmingly like an ancient near-eastern text in English translation.
But it will never be--it cannot be--verified by non-Mormon scholars, because to verify it would be, effectively, to become a Mormon.
I have to chuckle when I read that for some of you, a scientific study is proof that a question has been settled. As someone who spends his whole life involved in scholarship at the international level, I have to think that you are forgetting how fierce are the controversies surrounding some of the most basic questions, and how they fluctuate.
In fifteen years of studying and teaching ancient civilizations at universities on the East Coast and in the West, and working with colleagues on two continents, I've seen at least two wholesale revolutions of fundamental opinion about the structure and customs of ancient civilization.
I can see all kinds of reasons why there should be few recognizable physical remnants of Book of Mormon culture. But the internal evidence, particularly linguistic and ritual, is formidable.
It is alarmingly like an ancient near-eastern text in English translation.
But it will never be--it cannot be--verified by non-Mormon scholars, because to verify it would be, effectively, to become a Mormon.
wrz | 4:53 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
SonoIo | 4:11 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
I have read the Book of Mormon many times. I have received an undeniable witness from the Holy Spirit of its truthfulness. That, combined with evidence for its authenticity has caused me to conclude that it is indeed what it claims to be: the Word of God."
That's not the question. The question is: Is the book a history of the American (North, Central, South) Indians and Pacific Islanders?
I have read the Book of Mormon many times. I have received an undeniable witness from the Holy Spirit of its truthfulness. That, combined with evidence for its authenticity has caused me to conclude that it is indeed what it claims to be: the Word of God."
That's not the question. The question is: Is the book a history of the American (North, Central, South) Indians and Pacific Islanders?
To Thomas | 5:08 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
With Nahom, it is not just the name (Nahom, or Nahum, etc.), but the time,
location, and the fact that it is a burial ground, where Ishmael was buried that
"should" at least raise somebody's eyebrows. Then, combine it
with Bountiful, which fits the location descriptions in the BOM again. Then
throw in Mulek (son of Zedekiah), extremely complex chiasmus, Hebrew names and
phrases not found in the Bible, King Benjamin's speech as an ancient text,
and many other literary evidences that are too lengthy to list here. And with
less than one percent of Mesoamerica being explored, there is lots for us
believers to look forward to. Joseph Smith just "guessing" right
isn't too compelling to me.
One or two evidences might not mean anything. But dozens mean much, to me at least. With that, I don't expect this to cause you or anybody else to get baptized. The Holy Spirit confirms and convinces. Even ignoring the evidences for the BOM, I still believe. But to me the evidences are compelling. Others disagree. That's fine with me. But the mantra "there is NO evidence" for the BOM just is not true.
One or two evidences might not mean anything. But dozens mean much, to me at least. With that, I don't expect this to cause you or anybody else to get baptized. The Holy Spirit confirms and convinces. Even ignoring the evidences for the BOM, I still believe. But to me the evidences are compelling. Others disagree. That's fine with me. But the mantra "there is NO evidence" for the BOM just is not true.
the truth | 5:48 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
All Native American can be related as stated in introduction of the Book of
Mormon can in deed be true.
It's Just genetically very distant or extremely distant.
We know much of the current native inhabitants of the Americas DNa.
But do we realluy know of the inhabitants DNA 1000 years ago, or 2000 years ago, or 3 thousand years ago, or 4000 years ago?
Usable DNA if very diffucult to get from bones or hair that is a few decades or even less, let alone a thousand years ago.
Hence the Dominant most predominant DNA we know of of the american inhabitants most likly come from those who came to america in that lst 1000 years.
And even then we can't sure because, as I stated, it is extremely difficult if not impossible to get usable DNA except from that which is most recent historically.
Thus extrapolation must be used which is wholly based on assumption and hence not reliable at all. But just for supposing possiblities. And thus no absolute scientific conclusion can made from it.
On top of it all, if you could get DNA, you must know what to look for. Do you know what-to-look-for?
It's Just genetically very distant or extremely distant.
We know much of the current native inhabitants of the Americas DNa.
But do we realluy know of the inhabitants DNA 1000 years ago, or 2000 years ago, or 3 thousand years ago, or 4000 years ago?
Usable DNA if very diffucult to get from bones or hair that is a few decades or even less, let alone a thousand years ago.
Hence the Dominant most predominant DNA we know of of the american inhabitants most likly come from those who came to america in that lst 1000 years.
And even then we can't sure because, as I stated, it is extremely difficult if not impossible to get usable DNA except from that which is most recent historically.
Thus extrapolation must be used which is wholly based on assumption and hence not reliable at all. But just for supposing possiblities. And thus no absolute scientific conclusion can made from it.
On top of it all, if you could get DNA, you must know what to look for. Do you know what-to-look-for?
something | 5:51 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
People say that there are no non-LDS scientists or non-LDS archaeologists that
believe the Book of Mormon.
The current site director of Teotihuacan, which is in Mexico, Alejandro Sarabia, and his wife, Dr. Kim Goldsmith, are both converts to the Church (which means they are no longer non-LDS archaeologists!)
They were archaeologists and did decades of work at Teotihuacan before they joined the Church. They both believe that Teotihuacan fits the description of great cities of cement in the "land northward" as described in the Book of Mormon.
Just in case anybody was wondering. I read this on the Mormon apologetics discussion board in a forum search.
The current site director of Teotihuacan, which is in Mexico, Alejandro Sarabia, and his wife, Dr. Kim Goldsmith, are both converts to the Church (which means they are no longer non-LDS archaeologists!)
They were archaeologists and did decades of work at Teotihuacan before they joined the Church. They both believe that Teotihuacan fits the description of great cities of cement in the "land northward" as described in the Book of Mormon.
Just in case anybody was wondering. I read this on the Mormon apologetics discussion board in a forum search.
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.
- RSL will play for MLS Cup tonight 3:06 a.m.
- Jazz outlast Pistons in overtime 3:06 a.m.
- Utah Utes whip SDSU 3:05 a.m.
- BYU records with win 3:05 a.m.
- RSL dancing with soccer stars 3:04 a.m.
- Cougars turn focus to dreaded rivals 3:04 a.m.
- Dixie State campus briefs 3:03 a.m.
- Weber State campus briefs 3:02 a.m.
- UVU campus briefs 3:01 a.m.
- BYU campus briefs 2:59 a.m.
- Glenn Beck to enter politics?
- Can BYU throw vs. Air Force?
- BYU records with win
- Police link alcohol to murder
- Huntsman blasts media over trip
- Cougars cruise to victory in Hawaii
- Christian leaders not backing down
- Religion cited in deportation fight
- Orem man acquitted in tot's death
- 4A: Timpview wins 4th in 4 years
- Buttars wants to limit gay rights laws
192 - Palin plans tour stop in Utah173
- Glenn Beck to enter politics?129
- Palin's book shows she's unqualified122
- Officer cleared in Cardall Taser case103
- BYU cuts Women's Research Inst.100
- Jazz finally win in San Antonio98
- BYU records with win95
- Utes knock off rival Aggies93
- Huntsman pleased with Obama87
Latest comments
Beck is extremely smart, he is selling books and is very popular on TV. All...
@Mick, the Federal Govt is run by corporations through contributions and...
Lets bond together and hope for a REAL celebration SUnday night, can hardly...
I was on the playground too and some teachers came out and called us all to...
B.Y.U. has been a consistent a top 25 ranked winner under Max Hall. Hall has...
Did Timp win four in a row or 4 in 4 years?
You have a lot of growing up to do, It seems like you have not cxperienced...
The proposed ethics law puts roughly the same burden on a legislator that a...
Hall ACTUALLY broke the all timme wins record vs WYO last week. I guess...
Sounds to me like Kraig Powell may be a candidate for resignation. So long,...
Advertisements
OK, then, I propose the next time you get sick, you treat your illness by standing on your head and drinking ten bottles of root beer. One guess is as good as another.
And when you build your house, just guess at how far you should space the studs. Science can't possibly tell you precisely how many you need to keep your roof from falling on your head, so just go with your best conjecture.
One interesting point: The Nephi who appears in the Book of Mormon book of Helaman describes himself as a "pure descendant of Lehi." The most logical interpretation of that passage would be that his blood is not mixed with other lineages -- Mulekite, Jaredite, or (unmentioned) Maya, Toltec, or whatever.
If, after six hundred years, Nephi's lineage could be pure Lehite, there must have been a pretty large population descended from Lehi. And the odds of such a large population disappearing without any genetic trace (or any archaelogical, linguistic, or technological trace) are low.
So no, DNA may not disprove the Book of Mormon, but it adds another layer of low probability.