Deseret News | MormonTimes.com: DNA may help family research, but it won't prove or disprove Book of Mormon

Reader comments
MormonTimes.com: DNA may help family research, but it won't prove or disprove Book of Mormon

245 comments | Read story

circular agrument | 5:51 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008

circular argument: you will know it is true if you pray and the Lord tells you, if He does not tell you, you have not prayed hard enough, or did not see the sign. Pray again.

good grief.

Thomas | 6:13 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008

"To Thomas" -- "NHM" isn't "a burial ground." "NHM" was inscribed on a stone in a location that (like virtually all settlements, ancient and modern) had a cemetery. There's no evidence that the place was named after the burial ground, any more than there is that Draper is actually named after the Draper Cemetery.

But I'll concede that the NHM stone might constitute one piece of evidence for the Book of Mormon. Add in chiasmus, wordprints, etc., and what you have -- in my honest opinion -- is a fairly weak circumstantial case. To be honest, you then have to balance that case -- fairly and rigorously -- with all the evidence on the other side: DnA, paleobotany, archaology, linguistics, parallels between the Book of Mormon and influences in Joseph Smith's own culture, and more. As someone who has a vested interest in the Book of Mormon being true -- as I've invested a great deal of my life, time, and resources in it -- I'm afraid the balance of the evidence doesn't look good.

An unmistakable spiritual witness might tip the balance back in the other direction, but for me and many others, it hasn't made an appearance.

SL Cabbie | 6:19 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008

A little note to the poster who suggested to "Simon in Oz" he could find answers to his questions at the Mormon Apologetics board . . .

"Simon in Oz" is my good friend, Dr. Simon Southerton, whose book "Losing a Lost Tribe" was among the first to raise the Native American DNA questions.

I bear witness in my heart of hearts that this is true, and his DNA is pure Aussie . . .

BTW, the MA&D board routinely bars people who bring the sort of irrefutable information and facts he possesses to their midsts . . .

Comments continue below

the truth | 6:20 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008

About the question: Where is the evidence?

The answer and possibilities ar eobvious.

Regarding the animals mention in the Book of Mormon:

There may not have benn very many of them,

How many could they have possibly brought with them?

Did they think to bring both male and female?

Perhaps only the king would have had any,

They could have died off from diseases or predators,

they have been killed off during a famine,

they could have been killed off during the many wars mention in the Book of Mormon

Do you know how rapidly a dead animal can disappear in nature, especially a jungle? very rapidly.

They may nothing left than trace calcium.

What ever evidence may be left,

Do you know where to look for it?

The answer are numerous and the possibilies many, and science can not eliminate any of them.

the truth | 6:31 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008

About the question: where is the evidence?

Regarding mining and smelting of ore in the Book of Mormon:

What was the extent the mining smelting mention in the Book of Mormon?

NO one Knows for sure. Or where to look.

How many were taught how to do this? How many actually practiced it?

Teaching mining and smelting or ore and doing it are two different things.

All knowledge could have been lost during the many wars mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

How much was actually made out iron or other metals?

chariots can be made out of wood,

weapons can be made out wood and stone,

Iron things may be nothing more that rust, other metals nothing more than some oxidation somewhere.

Where do you look for this trace rust and oxidation?

If any evidence does exist, where do you look?

Again many answers and possiblites, and science can not elimante any of them.

Andrew | 7:01 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008

Go pray about DNA...you will get an answer. I'm sure if forensic sciences uses it to catch criminals-- that this should be a good indication of it's worth.

Ello | 7:17 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008

If DNA does not prove anything, then why does it stand up in every court in the country?
The problem is not with the DNA, it is with the closed minds of Mormons.

To Thomas | 7:22 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008

Draper is not unknown, then to be discovered by a non-English speaking uneducated farm boy, never having visited Draper or having no evidence of learning about Draper, translating correctly the unknown English language word "Draper" into some other language, getting the location, time, and assumption that a Draper cemetery existed all correct. Nahom IS itself evidence. If it doesn't convince you of the authenticity of the BOM, fine. But evidence it is, especially when explanations of how it got in the BOM are usually, "Joseph Smith guessed correctly" being a weak explanation.

The evidence is always interesting. To you, it "doesn't look good". To my father, it converted him to Mormonism (from him I learned this all), and countless others who on other discussion boards have had different conclusions than you. And yes, countless others who have not been convinced like you have. It is interesting how the same evidence leads to such different conclusions.

I do accept that people are not always convinced by BOM evidences. Faith is needed, and that spiritual witness does more than "tip the balance", it changes a person's life. Hopefully one day you will discover that faith and spiritual witness.

God bless.

To SL Cabbie | 7:29 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008

MADB will NOT bar people from bringing "irrefutable information". Only posters which are disrespectful in nature (or post temple content) will be banned. MADB has plenty of critics who actually do on occasions make good discussions and arguments. If Simon or you would join in a respectful discussion on there, it would be wonderful to read it. Go there, and if you follow the rules, I GUARANTEE you will not be banned. They welcome knowledgeable critics. Actually, even though I am a regular MADB poster, I love it when critics show up who are respectful and have good arguments. Even though I disagree with their arguments, I enjoy reading the discussions because I learn a lot. Even the critics sometimes make good points that have led me to understand Mormonism in a more profound way.

Thomas | 8:16 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008

"To Thomas," I'm not a statistician, and (I presume) neither are you. But I do know that coincidences -- even remarkable coincidences -- are statistically likely. The fact that "NHM" is the crown jewel in the LDS apologetic arsenal suggests that this coincidence is the only one the apologists can find.

Take the opposing position for a moment: Assume Joseph Smith set out to write the Book of Mormon himself, drawing on the book most familiar to him -- the King James Bible -- for background information on Middle Eastern culture. He used plenty of Semitic or Semitic-sounding names. ("Lehi," for example, is a placename in the Book of Judges.)

Now, Joseph Smith was familiar with the Old Testament book of Nahum. If he could use the Biblical placename "Lehi" for a proper name in the Book of Mormon, he could well use the Biblical name "Nahum" (or a slight variant) for a Book of Mormon placename. So it's not a matter of Joseph Smith simply guessing randomly.

What are the odds that a place in a Semitic-speaking country might have the same name as a Semitic proper name from the Bible. Probably pretty good, I'd bet.

John Pack Lambert | 8:24 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008

To Trina and others,
I was inprecise in what I said, and I guess thus wrong. I should have said that no chariots have been found in Philistia. It is true that there have been chariots found in Egypt that are connected with Philistines but that is a different story.
Also, the fact is that there is evidence of both wheels and horses in pre-Columbian America, while there are also many ways that horses may be used for other animals and chariots do not need to have wheels.
You can not approach the Book of Mormon as a modern book, interpret it through modern eyes and then expect to find evidence that supports your theories.
Anyway, you do not want evidence to support the Book of Mormon. You strain evidence to attack it, and ignore anything that might support it as long as you can.

Thomas | 8:36 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008

Also, "To," the point is that you must view all the evidence as a whole -- not fixate on those points that support your position, interpret them as favorably to your side as possible, and ignore everything else.

I'm reminded of the OJ jury fixating on the ill-fitting glove, and rejecting the DNA, the blood, the witnesses....

John Pack Lambert | 8:40 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008

To the 12:14 nameless peron,
What makes you think that the Nephites dies around Camorah in New York. First off, it is possible there is more than one Hill Cumorah.
Secondly, what is the acceptaed distance of being close by to qualify as "the Land of Cumorah". Thidly, what evidence would we have 1600 years latter of massive amounts of deaths. And fourthly, has anyone ever conducted archeological surveys that would produce evidence of such deaths?
I know the Book of Mormon is true because I have had the Holy Ghost witness to me that it is true.
There are three or more explanations I can think of about Cumorah. One is that Cumorah was a different place. Another is that the battle happen in an area that has not been discovered. A third is that if a mass burning of the remains was done and thus their decomposure was expedited, we would not find any evidence. That might be far fetched, but the first two, especially the second is not. Unless archeological excavations have been done everywhere in New York to levels of at least the AD 400 mark what evidence do you have?

John Pack Lambert | 8:45 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008

To the 1:33 commentator,
As I tried to explain in previous posts, the ancestry of the "Lamanites" is much more complexed than you are willing to admit.
That the Lamanites as they existed in 400 are the primary ancestors of the Native Americans I do not dispute. That the Lamanites as they existed in 400 were genetically in the main Middle Eastern people is hard to suppose. The best study of the Book of Mormon points to the in mixing of other peoples, who in general became culturally subsumed by the Lamanites, but who represented other genetic origins.

Tadpole | 8:53 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008

My question is this: How can a church that embraces technology to spread its message totally reject the findings of another branch of science? Seems like a double standard. The real test will be someday when the Church needs DNA evidence for whatever reason - use your imagination. Can't wait for that one.

John Pack Lambert | 8:54 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008

To the 1:59 commentator,
And you have never heard false ideas about DNA from a non-Mormon ever? How old was the alleged child, and why did he have any particular insite on the subject?
I have never heard someone propound such an idea.
However many of you ignore things. Spencer W. Kimball's description of the Book of Mormon as quoted above totally ignores the people of Mulek. He also leaves out Zoram, and those are just the most obvious. He was giving a talk about symbolic ancestry, not a dissertation on the literal process of population growth.
If the horses in the Book of Mormon meant Tapir than why did not God reveal Tapir? God speaks to every man in their own language, and that would have just been too wierd to Joseph.
However, anyone who really wants to study this, go read the FAIR stuff on the subject. There is a place where they explain all about the low number of words. We learn in the Doctrine and COvenants that Joseph had to work it out in his mind. He translated the text, and to a large extent was limited by the small vocabulary of Reformed Egyptian.

Thoughtful Lurker | 8:56 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008

A rich discussion for the most part.

As far as the evidence regarding animals, the evidence may be more complex than it appears; e.g.:

-- There are small groups of "Bison" that still exist in Eastern Europe (they used to be all over Europe). American Bison have been used to reinforce their dwindling numbers and genetic capacity.

-- Bison and cattle have been/are successfully crossed; it makes a very mean (but tasty) critter called a "Catalow."

-- All kinds of cat species have crossed both naturally and otherwise.

In addition:

-- Japanese words have been found in the Zuni language; some speculation about shipwrecked Japanese fishermen, etc.

In short -- from a "scientific" perspective, there's just too much we don't know to postulate for sure one way or the other -- scientifically speaking.

Evidence | 9:00 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008

Text found in both in 2 Nephi from the Hebrew Version AND the Greek Septuagint is another remarkable evidence. There are literally dozens of pieces of the Greek/Hebrew version of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon.

For example, 2 Nephi 12:16 shows the following texts:

"And upon all the ships of the sea, and upon all the ships of Tarshish".

Isaiah 2:16 (King James) only has: "And upon all the ships of Tarshish". The greek Septuagint only has "ships of the sea". The Book of Mormon has both.

There are many, many more examples of this where the greek may have a word like "him" may have appeared as "his" in the KJV. The BoM uses the greek replacement.

How did Joseph Smith do this, down to the most suttle of changes? One or two of these could be argued as coincodence, but dozens and dozens of coincodences? Not likely.

The strongest evidence the Book of Mormon has is inside the text itself. The LDS church also removed the words "and" from "If then" statements because it sounded better in english. In reality, this was considered proper form in Hebrew. Again, how could Joseph Smith know this?

Narcissism | 9:01 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008

There is nothing that can change the mind of closed minded brainwashed people. The evidence could be right before their eyes but they would refuse to believe it or see it. Narcissism is a disease of the mind.

However, I KNOW FOR A TRUE FACT THAT DNA IS REAL AND THAT IT CAN PROVE MANY MANY THINGS THE HUMAN EYE CANNOT SEE.

John Pack Lambert | 9:03 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008

To Freddie,
I do have to admit that the mounds of dirt seems somewhat weak.
Why,
A. because any specific location for the Book of Mormon is tenous.
B. How amazing is it that people made mounds of dirt.
C. Can we date these mounds of dirt. If so, does their dating match Book of Mormon times.
All told, I do not think that the mounds of dirt will convince anyone one way or the other.
On the other hand, it is clear that they can not say no one in the Ancient Americas put mounds of dirt around their cities. Well, no that is not clear, since people deny the existence of wheels when there are pre-Columbian wheels in existence.
There is the factor of religious adversion to using wheels on a large scale that needs to be considered.

RE:Ello | 9:18 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008

You can use DNA to identfy living people with 99.9 degree a certainty. But must two sample the samle you want to math adn the sample want to attempt a match with.

You can not use DNA for people you do not have DNA of.

And even then you must compare it to something.

DNA only shows to a degree how much 2 dna samples match. NO name magicallly pops up in test.

Testing individual DNa can tell what it is dna of ( human feline etc), and only in a general sense who its mother line is and its father line. And this assumes you can get "good" sample dna.

The older your source the harder it get a good sample even with good preservation, and even harder to get the fathers line dna.

So while it's good for criminal cases or paternity or maternity cases where has two perfect sample to test,

that's much different that the usefulness for archealogical or anthropolical study where you don't have that, and even when can get some dna it usaully only the mothers part.

And everything must inferred or intrapolated from what you CAN get, just a tiny-very-limited-narrow picture if the-past.

Sarah | 9:37 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008

Not only is there evidence of small pre-Columbian horses in the Americas, but there are also cave drawings in South America of the people riding - as you would a horse - a deer-like animal.

They have found ancient Chilean mummies that are of Semitic origin, with NO Asian DNA markers in them.

They have found elephant bones in Califoria. They have found evidence of mastadons in both North and South America.

People have criticized the idea that people came from the Middle East, but they've found proof that it did happen.

They cricitized the idea that ancient people used metallic plates to record ideas, but they've found multiple examples of this.

They've found evidence of many of the weapons, tools, and ores that were used in the BoM, even though they were all heavily criticized at one point or another.

Time will prove the validity of the BoM, whether it's due to continuing future archaelogical advances or after Christ comes again. The BoM is literal, not figurative, and time will prove that. But proof isn't what's important right now. Right now, faith is. We're never going to get anywhere spiritually if we don't have faith.

To Thomas | 9:53 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008

Actually, I do understand probability and statistics somewhat well, having studied and minored in it in college, however, I am no professional statistician. The probability is smaller than you think, given ALL the possible names JS could have come up with, even with a Semitic knowledge, which he did not have at the time of the translation of the BOM. But, once again, consider the location, time, and name combined with Bountiful and others. To get ALL correct requires a multiplication of probabilities. For example, if the probability of the name is one-fourth (believe me, it is MUCH smaller than that, but I am simplifying here), and the probability of the location is one-fourth, and the probability of the time is one-fourth, then all three together are one-sixty fourth. Now, if more correct, lower probabilities are considered, the actual probability is ridiculously low. When you say Nahom "is the only one the apologists can find" - I suggest you study the others. There are MANY. My personal favorite is King Benjamin's speech as evidence of an ancient text. Apologists use Nahom often because it is easy to explain, and a physical entity entices the curiosity more.

Bob | 10:05 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008

Wow, talk about putting your head in the sand, and then covering it with a blanket.

Sandra | 10:40 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008

Perhaps the LDS church needs to have special interest classes for learning about DNA. Don't be afraid folks, it will not hurt you. You will be totally surprised at what you may learn about yourself.

A thinker | 10:48 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008

The Church should just stop publishing these stories. It gets worse and worse every time an apologist tries to defendf our faith. It is just sameful and we make a mockery of calling ourselves the true church when we publish such articles. If it is true let's let it be; who are we trying to convince --OURSELVES!!??

John Pack Lambert | 10:51 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008

I am tired of all this talk of "Asian" and "Middle Eastern" DNA markers.
Do we know what DNA markers the people in the Middle East would have had in 600BC? We seem to forget that there have been all sorts of intermixings of various peoples since then, with influzes from Europe, Central Asia and Arabia.
How different are different DNA samples. How much does the relevant DNA mutate over 2500 plus years? Are the studies of Native American DNA related to Mitochondrian or Y DNA?
Even the case for DNA in the court room is over simplified at times.
Here we are trying to decide if DNA is more like group X or group Y, yet with things like the Jaredite issue, and how did Sharem not know Jacob? we end up with a lot of "not stated x or y" DNA.

Anonymous | 11:03 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008

I was wondering why my dog has the same DNA as Warren Jeffs? It really worries me.

Which God will I follow? | 11:02 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008

Do I follow the god of science or the God of this Earth? Hmmmm, not too hard a choice, but do I have all the answers? No, I do not, but I have a whole lot of faith. And my faith is that we have a perfect God, who is all knowing, and He is the creator and the greatest scientist that has ever existed. I believe that we have such a tiny portion of scientific information as compared to Him. I also believe that He lets all the "know it alls", in all areas of controversy, spout their anti-religion ideas, because that is what we call agency. I believe that one day we will have a full understanding, and we will feel like the little 14 year old that thinks they know more than their parents and realize that we have no clue. Faith people, faith, it is such a wonderful peaceful thing, when some things don't make sense.

RE: Sandra | 11:15 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008

Do you know something, then why don't you expound on it, and enlighten us all? You can use 200 words per comment and all comments you need so we can all benefit from your knowledge.

Or are you just blowing smoke to cover your actual lack knowledge of DNA?

If you are not willing to share then what is the point of you comment?

As you said don't be afraid, it won't hurt you, unless of course you have something to hide.

And why do you Anti-mormons and others ignore the evidence that does exist?

Because it challenges your world view of things?

You look at the evidence then draw conclusions, you don't make conclusions then conveniently ignore the facts that don't fit.

Those in the know have made it very clear DNA does not disprove the BoM claims.

And other science and studies have not proven the BoM wrong either.

And in fact seems give it more creedence.

When the anti's and other won't even listen to the experts and scientists, what can you do?

Don't reject the truth just because you don't like the source.

JoulesNoMo | 11:22 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008

Beware of stories that are published from Provo! I would expect the newspaper of the LDS church to do a little better. You discredit yourself and the LDS community with these stories. LDS stories have become a joke in this paper and it is a reflection upon the LDS faith. For a religion that is based on appearance and not substance, I would except a little better presentation and spin when trying to articulate a topic to the gentiles.

Henry Drummond | 11:27 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008

I have never understood why there is this fixation with DNA evidence and the Book of Mormon. There are any number of things that could be cited (and have been by previous posters) that lead scientists to very different conclusions than people of faith concerning the Book of Mormon story.

If you base your belief on faith, then why not just say so? Its far better than making yourself look foolish by saying that DNA evidence can be used to trace your ancestors as long as they aren't American Indians.

to my friends sandra and bob | 12:16 a.m. Aug. 26, 2008

I consider myself an amateur scientist. I graduated with a BS in biology (no pun intended of course ;) ) I am confident that most LDS folks are more than confident in current DNA practices and results. As was stated in this article, using DNA testing to "prove" the lineage of an ancient people is much more complicated than simply testing a father and son, or a DNA sample to verify a villain. There are simply too many variables to test an ancient people and be certain of the results. AS someone else stated, the Book of Mormon will be proven someday but I'm sure of its truthfulness now! Just as I know that my family and friends love me and I love them, and just as I know that at the end of night a new day will dawn. I'm grateful for this knowledge and the assurance I have received from God that the Book of Mormon is true.

Have a great day.

PS- Before calling someone brainwashed, please look in the mirror (that goes for everyone on here)

Freddie | 1:01 a.m. Aug. 26, 2008

John Pack Lambert | 9:03 p.m.:

"To Freddie,

I do have to admit that the mounds of dirt seems somewhat weak. Why,

A. because any specific location for the Book of Mormon is tenous."

The location 'ud be where the mounts of dirt are.... seems.

"B. How amazing is it that people made mounds of dirt."

Very rare. That's why mounds are interesting. Europe for example, used castles and moats for city defense.

"C. Can we date these mounds of dirt?"

Yes. They're as old as... dirt.

"If so, does their dating match Book of Mormon times."

To my knowledge, no one can date dirt.

"All told, I do not think that the mounds of dirt will convince anyone one way or the other."

Just one small but interesting tidbit.

LabRat | 1:40 a.m. Aug. 26, 2008

I commented. It ended with a URL, so don't know if it will just be edited or not shown (I also used ancestor when I meant descendant). Either way, PBS a few years ago highlighted a case in their series "Secrets or the Dead (Amazon Warrior Women)" with circumstances seemingly matching those that those who say DNA can't be used to prove a connection between modern "Lamanites" and ancient Semites ... yet in this case it worked! Proving a connection between a "mythical" society in Romania 2000 years ago, with living people in Mongolia whose ancestral people were "absorbed" into a much larger conquering population.

Willy | 9:00 a.m. Aug. 26, 2008

Re: 11:15pm
Sounds like you want nag at others rather than talk about DNA. You seem to think you know it all, and have the right to make judgments of others. I am happy that you have such an uplifting testimony of the church and rich life, that you can spend time, and set around, and find fault and belittle others.

Although, I am not professing to be a great or perfect Mormon, or a holier than thou guy, I still wonder about the connections of any DNA , if there is any, to the the Lamanites.

Princeton Graduate | 9:05 a.m. Aug. 26, 2008

Can we really call finding a stone with "NHM" as plausible evidence for a story which is so general as to be unprovable? Contrast this with the Bible's copious and irrefutable geographical, archaeological and historical evidence.

Hebrew doesn't have vowels, so the Hebrew name NHM is (nun-chet-men). But since we don't know what vowels were supposed to be used, any other vowel permutation is equally likely: Nahum, Niham, Noham, Nuhim, Nuham and so on (25 different combinations are possible in fact, 30 if the second vowel is left out completely). So to appeal to the inscripton "NHM" as proving the location "Nahom" is really unfounded.

In any case, this is not the first time LDS explorers have tried to match a location with the place Nahom. If it is so easy to locate, why the continued list of contenders? After all, in Biblical geography, we know there is one Jericho (located), one Babylon (located), one Nazareth (located), and so on. Mormons can't even positively locate one supposed town from the Book of Mormon.

To make matters worse for the LDS apologists, the only evidence we have for the correct vowel-substitution/pronunciation of NHM is the extant pronunciation: "Nihm".

Roger | 9:20 a.m. Aug. 26, 2008

Whenever I hear people make the claim that DNA evidence has proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the Book of Mormon is fake, I wonder how many of those people have actually read the Book of Mormon.

The 522 page BOM reports to be a history of Ancient American civilizations, covering a period of about 2000 years. My question is, how can scientists make any specific claim, either for or against the BOM, with such a small record?

Not only that, let's break it down from there.

-The Book of Ether, which is the Jaredite record, is only 15 chapters in length. Could anyone possibly write a specific, detailed history of a civilization which existed for 1000 years, and do so in only 15 short chapters?

-The Book of Jacob to the Book of Omni, which included the Allegory of the Olive Tree, covers a period of about 240 years, in only 10 chapters,

-4th Nephi, which is only one brief chapter, covers a period of about 250 years.

The fact is, we don't really have much to go on with the BOM. Therefore, speculation can be as big as the Grand Canyon and all ideas can be examined.

KM | 9:57 a.m. Aug. 26, 2008

I think most of you believe because you *want* to believe. As soon as you accept that it might just all be made up, like any other religion, all the problems and inconsistencies and lack of evidence vanish.

Really? | 10:00 a.m. Aug. 26, 2008

Princeton Graduate 9:05 - Since you sound like a strong expert on the Bible, can you answer some questions?

Where was the Garden of Eden? Has research shown what Adam and Eve's race was?

Where is Noah's Ark? Can science explain how Noah got two of every animal onto the Ark? After which, the animals dispersed to various locations throughout the world, making certain species unique to certain locations?

Has research shown that Abraham even existed? Some Christian scholars state Abraham did not exist but was just a metaphor.

How exactly did Moses part the Red Sea? Has any scientist been able to dupicate this? Where's the evidence that the Children of Israel wondered in the wilderness for 40 years?

If the four gospels of the New Testament give a detailed, accurate account of the life of Jesus, why were they written some 40 to 70 years after the fact? And why does the Gospel of Matthew sound like it was copied from the Gospel of Mark?

If Bible evidence boils down to, "There's an actual Babylon, Jericho and Nazareth, and they're each mentioned in the Bible, so that proves the Bible is true," that's HARDLY solid proof.

To Roger: | 10:05 a.m. Aug. 26, 2008

I read it several times when I was a Mormon. It was terribly boring, but I tried to convince myself that it had deep spiritual meaning. It didn't.

Mark Twain read it and said it was "chloroform in print." I concur.

Princeton Graduate | 10:23 a.m. Aug. 26, 2008

To Really?

I never said the Bible was true. I said that there is ample archeological and geographical support for certain locations and certain events mentioned in the Bible. The Book of Mormon cannot make the same claim.

You wanted to know where the Garden of Eden is located. Joseph Smith said it was located in Jackson County, Missouri.

Lynnsey | 10:29 a.m. Aug. 26, 2008

I read the book of Mormon last year as the church requested members to do. I found it very confusing. My husband tried to explain it to me but it still made no sense whatsoever....geee, do i ever feel dumb.

I think DNA is a wonderful thing for connecting people. I often watch forensic science tv, and it always delights me to no end when they catch the bad guy using DNA to match a person to a crime.

Thomas | 10:35 a.m. Aug. 26, 2008

If "faith" is merely deciding to believe what we choose to believe, and ignoring all other evidence, what compels us to have faith in Mormonism and not Islam?

The same logic -- "Ignore the evidence and just have faith" -- could support belief in any religion.

Convinced | 10:39 a.m. Aug. 26, 2008

The study by Rod Meldrum concerning DNA evidence and the geography is quite excellent. bookofmormonevidence.com and the DVD presentation that he made from his years of research truly testify to the reality of the Book of Mormon.

Nahom | 11:46 a.m. Aug. 26, 2008

Nahom wasn't mentioned nearly as often today as evidence for the Book of Mormon decades ago. That is because the German archaeological team discovery of it in Yemen is fairly recent. There is only one location that apologists refer to: the NHM location. Before the more precise discovery, it was less known exactly where its location was. The name Nahom is one of several possible translations, but getting the time and location correct is more impressive. If the Book of Mormon contained GPS coordinates to locations in Mesoamerica, I am sure they would have been located and identified by now. As such, locations described in the BOM are rather vague, however consistent with hundreds of references in the BOM. John L. Sorensen has documented this.

As a believer, I have read all the contradicting "theories" by critics as to how the Book of Mormon came to be. If it is so obviously a fraud without a shred of evidence as critics say, then why do critics disagree on its origins (Joseph Smith, Spaulding manual, View of the Hebrews, etc.). If the book is a fraud, the difficulty is explaining its origin within the historical context.

Thomas | 11:47 a.m. Aug. 26, 2008

Re: "ships of Tarshish" and "ships of the sea" -- The translation of the passage that the King James Version has as "ships of Tarshish" as "ships of the sea" was well known to commentators on the Bible in and before Joseph Smith's time. For example, John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, wrote a commentary on the Old Testament in 1765 that noted the alternative translation. The Catholic Douai Bible has the passage as "ships of the sea."

Does anyone know which particular printing of the King James Bible was used as the Smith family Bible? Was it an annotated version, cross-referencing the verses with commentaries? Did Joseph Smith have access to Bible commentaries, or could he have heard the "ships of the sea" alternative translation from, say, a Methodist preacher who would have been familiar with Wesley's commentary?

If so, the "ships of Tarshish/ships of the sea" reference looks a lot less remarkable.

Neo | 11:48 a.m. Aug. 26, 2008

Im partially active, served a mission and have a few kids. The BOM is a good story and does help us draw closer to God. We need to be careful not to take it too literal. There is quite a bit of evidence that the BOM was just a guy telling a story from a placing his face in his hat. Certainly incredible to pull that out of the hat, but either way no geographic evidence supports it and DNA says opposite of our own prophets. I thought prophets cannot be wrong? Hmmm I guess they are just men with opinions just like the rest of us.

To KM @ 9:57 | 12:02 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said: I think most of you believe because you *want* to believe. As soon as you accept that it might just all be made up, like any other religion, all the problems and inconsistencies and lack of evidence vanish.

That has been my experience too. There was a time when I so desperately wanted to believe it was all true, that I was actually able to convince myself it was. Once I let go of the need to believe, life became much easier and made a whole lot more sense.

Believe whatever you want, but life really is a lot less complicated once you stop trying to put round pegs into square holes.

Spiritual Evidence | 12:09 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008

I am a member of the Church and love the Book of Mormon for strengthening my testimony of the Savior and His atonement. But I'm afraid we are fighting a losing battle trying to prove the Book of Mormon in any way other than how it can strengthen our relationship with the Savior.

I read a wonderful National Geographic special addition of the Mayan culture the other day. I'm no FARMs expert but nothing in there seemed to even hint of Hebrew, Jewish, Middle Eastern, or Old Testiment influence. NHM, Chiasmus and other "evidence" has to be stretched a great deal to fit and all of it has a more plausible alternate explanation. I'm embarrassed that the Church actually pays some people to try to explain that horses were really deer and chariots possibly sleds. And why the two most prominent words/images in Mayan culture - maize and leopards - are not even hinted at in the BofM is a whole different question.

The bottom line for me is that our search for evidence is a losing (if not lost) battle. Instead, it enlightens and strengthens our understanding of the Savior and atonement. And that's the only evidence I need!

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.