Deseret News | Lehi and DNA X-theory is complicated

Reader comments
Lehi and DNA X-theory is complicated

Page:
1
2
Next >

Anonymous | 12:15 a.m. Oct. 9, 2009

Square peg, round hole

Give it up | 3:59 a.m. Oct. 9, 2009

LOL!

Simon | 5:36 a.m. Oct. 9, 2009

Lineages that are most likely to be the X lineage have been identified in ancient American Indian remains from Florida dated to 7,000 to 8,000 years ago, thus predating the putative arrival of Middle Easterners in the Americas in 2000BC. Many other current studies on ancient remains will soon confirm this finding.

To quote Perego “One verified match in the Old World and the date of X2a in America could drop from 12,000 years to, say, 4,000 years or even Book of Mormon time periods.

This statement offers false hope that the American Indian X2a lineage may have come from Israel. Perego and other scientists in the field know it didn’t. You could use this same argument with the A, B, C and D lineages if you also chose to ignore the fact that these lineages have been found in ancient remains predating 2000BC.

Comments continue below

Faith... | 7:24 a.m. Oct. 9, 2009

Anyone who tries to find 'proof' that the Book of Mormon exists, God is real, and whether or not Joseph Smith did do what he said he did lacks the needed faith required. You don't think God looks down on all of the naysayers, those who get so caught up in empirical evidence, and weeps?

It reminds me of the wicked Nephites who, just before Jesus was to be born, witnessed a day, a night, and a day without darkness (3 Nephi) just as it had been prophesied (even though there was a government mandated decree that put to death anyone who believed in this prophecy). Even with this literal 'night and day' evidence, many still didn't believe.

No matter the evidence one way or another, it all boils down to FAITH. There will always be a way of explaining away any 'proof' found whether it be through DNA or otherwise. I have no doubt it's interesting, but it is unwise, even dangerous, to get too caught up in it...

Tim | 7:30 a.m. Oct. 9, 2009

Accept the BoM for what it is and move on - it's fiction. There, I said it!

Re: Tim | 8:05 a.m. Oct. 9, 2009

I accept the BoM for what it is and HAVE moved on - it's the word of God. There, I said it!

Re:Give it up | 8:27 a.m. Oct. 9, 2009

I agree, they need to give up on this notion that the BOM is a true account of historical events. Just call it a day and use the BOM as more of a spiritual device.

kenny | 8:40 a.m. Oct. 9, 2009

Greater is the man who accepts the Book Of Mormon on faith, than the one who rejects it for lack of proof.

Bill | 8:44 a.m. Oct. 9, 2009

As I have stated before DNA will not prove or disprove the Book of Mormon. It is time that scientist understand this. Sure it is nice to see and try and find a way to prove it but the Lord has already given us a means to know for ourselves without any scientific means.

All you have to do is look at the world's history that is contained within the Bible and the Book of Mormon to understand that when we are asking for signs of man or proof by man that we are actually enemies to God's will. It is by the Holy Spirit of Promise that we will know the truth of all things if we but ask after everything we do.

Re: Tim 8.05 | 8:55 a.m. Oct. 9, 2009

The BoM not only has external problems but internal contradictions. In Joseph Smith-History(1:19)he attacks the creeds as an abomination but yet teaches the creeds: There is only one God,(D&C 20:19,28),God is unchanging(Moroni 8:18)God is a Spirit(Alma 18:26-28).Basically the Nicene Creed. This is just a partial list. I really read the BoM?

A Man's Perspective | 9:09 a.m. Oct. 9, 2009

For the Book of Mormon, it find its evidence (historical, physical, literary, etc.) to be extremely compelling. Combine that with a spiritual testimony of it, and I remain a firm believer, that it is a true record of an ancient people written for our spiritual benefit. The book is written for spiritual purposes, but evidence of ancient origins exists and to me are very compelling.

Without FIRST a spiritual testimony of the Book of Mormon, scholarly or intellectual discussions about it are usually pointless, and the evidences, which are so compelling to believers, are pointless to non-believers.

However, Jesus invites all to come unto Him, and follow Him. It is not a forceful invite, and requires belief, hope, and faith. The invite to believe in the Book of Mormon is included with that. If the evidences were compelling to non-believers, it would make Jesus a liar, as he has said that faith is essential to salvation, and proof of the Book of Mormon would counter the need for faith. Nobody wants to be forced to believe and be obedient.

With that, I find the evidences for the BOM beautiful. But my testimony is far greater.

Anonymous | 9:23 a.m. Oct. 9, 2009

If it's the same God as the creeds in the BOM, then how does he manage to say he saves unbaptized children (Moroni 8) and that Christ's Atonement covers those who died without knowing about him (2 Nephi 9: 25-26, Mosiah 3:11)? That's a different God than the churches of the creeds profess to believe in, and I'm one LDS Church member who's happy to admit that.

I can't say I blame people who stop believing in God once they stop believing in the BOM.

Bill | 9:27 a.m. Oct. 9, 2009

To: RE: Tim 8:55

You state that it has contradictions but in reality there are no contradictions. Joseph Smith has always taught that our Heavenly Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, have bodies of flesh and bone. This is IAW his first vision, the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. God is also a spirit just as you and I have spirits. The difference between the Lord is that he has a perfected body that is joined with his spirit. This is well taught with in the cover of the Book of Mormon but is done away with by the Nicene Creed. If you have read the Book of Mormon as you have stated then you know that what I'm stating is fact not fiction.

Again there are no external problems to the Book of Mormon because it is by FAITH and FAITH alone that we know if it is true. The spirit of God will not lie to anyone if they ask in earnest, with a sincere heart and contrite spirit. Otherwise, you leave yourself open to the manipulations of the natural man which is an enemy to God.

perception is reality? | 9:29 a.m. Oct. 9, 2009

re: Tim | 7:30 a.m. Oct. 9, 2009 & Re: Tim | 8:05 a.m. Oct. 9, 2009

So, like the commercial on History channel, is the DaVinci code the greatest story ever told or the greatest story ever sold.

I personally have better things to do than seek for signs or get all bent out of shape and let the collective & decades long persecution complex control my thoughts and words.

RE: Bill | 9:36 a.m. Oct. 9, 2009

If something is true,there should be no problem in checking for the truth. Take the the Bereans,they examined the the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.(Acts 17:11). "Test everything, Hold on to the good,Avoid every kind of evil."(1Thess 5:21) When one becomes a Christian that does not mean they should hang their brain on the coat rack.

Live better | 9:36 a.m. Oct. 9, 2009

The great thing about the Book of Mormon is that it supports the teachings of Christ. The problem with the BoM is it's historical reality check points which has competing & compelling arguments at almost every turn (DNA, lack of artifacts, geographic locations, ...the list is long).
The level of belief in the factual reality of the BoM can be argued but it undeniably teaches us to be more Christlike and live better lives. In my opinion that it what really matters.

kc mormon | 9:44 a.m. Oct. 9, 2009

To Re: Tim 8.05
Stretching things abit there arent you? Have you ever heard of CONTEXT? It is needed with each of your scriptures you picked out. In D&C 20 you skip several verses that point to the one in purpose not being. MOrnoi 8 is speaking of the fact that God does not have one set of rules for one group and another set for another group nothing more. Alma 18 is your biggest stetch it is not teachingg that God is a spirit, it is simply using the name the people he is speaking to us for God. They called God the Great Spirit but did not understand the word God. This point is first shown in verse 18 then more specificaly in 24 and 25 were he said do you believe in God and the king said I dont know what that means. Then comes in the part you are trying to claim teaches the creed. It is no different that speaking to a Muslem and useing the term Alah. It is the term the people understand. Very weak argument trying to romev all context.

Richard Brinkly | 9:47 a.m. Oct. 9, 2009

Will the LDS leaders ever state publicly that the principal ancestors of Native Americans came from Asia rather than from Jerusalem? Will they clarify who is a Lamanite? Will the prophet ever announce the location of Book of Mormon lands? Will LDS missionaries stop telling potential Native American converts that the Book of Mormon is the record of their ancestors? Can these issues be resolved without doing great damage to church growth? The answer to all of these questions is probably "No."

It is time for the LDS leaders to face the issues. Some have suggested that the church should drop the Book of Mormon historical claims, and view it as an inspired allegory.

That's all folks | 9:50 a.m. Oct. 9, 2009

I think most of you just like to hear yourselves rattle noise around and about on Deseret News and some funny stuff called DNA.

I had a dream last night, mind you,..and there was no DNA. :B

Princeton Graduate | 9:50 a.m. Oct. 9, 2009

The truth of the matter is, investigation of mitochondrial DNA of more than 5,500 living Native Americans reveals that 99.4% can be traced back to Asia primarily via maternal lineages known as A, B, C, D and X. Only 0.6% came from Africa or Europe, most likely after 1492. Lineages A through D are only found in Asia. While the X lineage also is found in Europe and the Middle East, Asian and American lineages have distinctive markers that indicate an ancient separation long before the events described in the Book of Mormon. Similar results from nearly 1,000 paternal lineages substantiate a Northeast Asian origin of American Indians. Likewise, approximately 99% of the Polynesians surveyed to date can trace their maternal lineages back to Southeast Asia. The other 1% almost certainly came from Europe in the recent past.

If anybody else tells you differently, including the author of this article, they are not being intellectually honest.

Re; Kenny | 9:55 a.m. Oct. 9, 2009

"Greater is the man who accepts the Koran on faith,than the one who rejects it for the lack of proof." The Bom does halfway teach the Gospel(Mosiah 7:27). I'm more concerned about what is not in the BOM(restored Gospel)"you will be like God"(Genesis 3:5)

Anonymous | 10:01 a.m. Oct. 9, 2009

It seems like LDS scienticians spend about half their time searching for definitive proof that the BOM is true, and the other half rationalizing away their failure to find it.

Instereo | 10:19 a.m. Oct. 9, 2009

It's hard enough to prove the bible with scientific evidence let alone the Book of Mormon. You have to accept both on faith because when you look at them scientifically, linguistically, or historicially there are problems with both.

shawilli | 10:20 a.m. Oct. 9, 2009

I am hoping that maybe some glorious day it will be announced that Native Americans do indeed have some long lost hidden strand of DNA that will give them a connection to the Middle East. I am dissapointed that after some 180 years the Book of Mormon still remains such a great source of doubt and controversy to countless billions of people. I am dissapointed that in this age of modern research and scientific brilliance that the Book of Mormon still cannot be verified. I wonder if this is the way this will remain as a divine mystery until the entire church is gathered home amd God himself will explain why the Book was so unique and special.I just wonder why the bible can be verified and accepted and the Book of Mormon remains such a mystery that no one can explain it's origins and have been able to find one city or place in modern america that bears the names as found in the Book.

RE: BiLL, 9:27 | 10:38 a.m. Oct. 9, 2009

Spirit in Greek(Pneuma 4151) which like the wind invisable,immaterial. "Behold my hands and my feet.(Jesus speaking)that is myself; handle me,and see;for a spirits hath not not flesh and bones,as you see me have.(Luke 24:39) "Do not I fill heaven in earth? saith the Lord." (Jeremiah 23:24)
Bruce R McConkie understood when he said "God is a Spirit(John 4:22-24)is mis-translated. (Mormon Doctrine p 318) It's not ,I have a Greek N.T..

Anonymous | 10:45 a.m. Oct. 9, 2009

Richard Brinkly | 9:47 a.m. Oct. 9, 2009 wrote:

"Will the LDS leaders ever state publicly that the principal ancestors of Native Americans came from Asia rather than from Jerusalem? Will they clarify who is a Lamanite? Will the prophet ever announce the location of Book of Mormon lands? Will LDS missionaries stop telling potential Native American converts that the Book of Mormon is the record of their ancestors? Can these issues be resolved without doing great damage to church growth? The answer to all of these questions is probably "No."

It is time for the LDS leaders to face the issues. Some have suggested that the church should drop the Book of Mormon historical claims, and view it as an inspired allegory."

Interesting, did you know that the RLDS no longer views the Book of Mormon as inspired.

Fredd | 11:17 a.m. Oct. 9, 2009

I am 100% thoroughly convinced the BoM is not the word of God. Thanks to all these mental gymnastics I've been reading on the DMN the last couple years. Because of them I've been able to see every side of the argument thoroughly debated. I can throw out obvious trolls and obvious LDS kooks and weigh the logic of the thoughtful on both sides. It doesn't hold up. Like the man said above, either I believe in the BoM or I'm an enemy of God. There's your logic.

RE: KC Mormon | 11:18 a.m. Oct. 9, 2009

"There is only one God" read (2Nephi 31:21)in context. also,"And thus will the Father bear record of me,and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto me;for the Father,and I, and the Holy Ghost are one."(3Nephi 11:36). It was not untill the King Folliet discourses did Joseph Smith contradict the BoM.

Frank Castle | 11:52 a.m. Oct. 9, 2009

re: shawilli | 10:20 a.m. Oct. 9, 2009

//I just wonder why the bible can be verified and accepted//

Because it was compiled by men roughly 1700 yrs ago.

John Pack Lambert | 12:04 p.m. Oct. 9, 2009

Maybe the Jaredites brought the X2a DNA. The survival of break away remnants of that population seems likely due to name similarities in the Book of Ether and elsewhere in the Book of Mormon, as well as by how long it took to gather those who joined the final war.

who is a Lamanite? | 12:15 p.m. Oct. 9, 2009

In 4 Ne., the definition of Lamanite was reset to mean "...the people who had revolted from the church and taken upon them the name of Lamanites;" (4 Ne 1:20) After that, Nephite and Lamanite meant "believer" and "non-believer", until the Nephites, for the most part, stopped believing.

The point, however, is that after 4 Nephi the terms Lamanite and Nephite no longer have meanings related to lineage. Using the 4 Nephi definition, any people who are not "believers" (as defined by Mormon, i.e., the author/editor of the BOM) are "Lamanites". From that perspective, it could be a very large group. In many respects, the way the BOM uses "Lamanites" after 4 Ne is similar to the way early Mormon settlers used the term "Gentiles".

Anonymous | 12:25 p.m. Oct. 9, 2009

Square peg, round hole. Keep trying boys. I give you an A for effort.

kc mormon | 1:13 p.m. Oct. 9, 2009

To who is a Lamanite?
The use of the terms Nephite and Lamanite as social political terms goes back much farther than 4 Nephi, they go back to Jacob 1:13 "13 Now the people which were not aLamanites were Nephites". CLearly these were not genological terms but rather social political terms from very early in the Book of MOrmon. It can also be found in 2 Nephi 5:6. If you read it you can see that those that followed Nephi were his family (wife and kids), Zoram and his family, Sam and his family, Jacob, Joseph, his sisters, "AND ALL THOSE WHO WOULD GO WITH ME". Now we know that the only people left from among the group that left Jerusalem were Laman, Lemual, and the Sons of Ishmael all of which were Lamanites. So then who are the others? First they had to already have been present. Second they could not have been geneologicaly Nephites thus the term must be social political not genological.

kc mormon | 1:26 p.m. Oct. 9, 2009

To RE: KC Mormon
The fact that God and Christ were two bings was infact taught long before King Faulit in 1844. The first documented case of it is in 1835. In the 1835 account of the First Vision (writen not by Joseph but by Warren Cowdery Olivers brother) given by Joseph to a visiter in his home is very clear on the two beings. It reads:
"A personage appeared in the midst of this pillar of flame, which was spread all around and yet nothing consumed.
Another personage soon appeared like unto the first:
He testified also unto me that Jesus Christ is the son of God."
Here we have TWO personages in 1835. Further documentation shows that it was known to others before the Official Version was printed in 1842. IN a pamphlet published in Scottland in 1840 by Orson Pratt we read:
"and saw two glorious personages, who exactly resembled each other in their features or likeness."
From these it is very clear that the seperation of personages was taught long before 1844.

Is Jesus the Son of God? | 1:38 p.m. Oct. 9, 2009

Until I see the DNA evidence that Jesus is the actual Son of God, I won't believe it. After all, I'm too smart and sophisticated to accept things on faith, I require scientific signs, er, evidence.

A Man's Perspective | 2:02 p.m. Oct. 9, 2009

Square peg? Mental gymnastics? Please see the critics' theories for how the Book of Mormon came to be. The different theories are very consistent in one thing: how inconsistent they are.

kc mormon | 2:45 p.m. Oct. 9, 2009

To A Man's Perspective
My favorite is the Spalding theory. It has disproven in every way possiable including actualy publishing Spaldings book yet the critics still hold to it. They just keep adding more alterations to Spaldings manuscript. One such case has a page of the Original MAnuscript for the BOM being writen in Spaldings had showing that Jospeh just stole the Mnauscript. The interesting thing is this same handwriting is also found in a D&C manuscript writen long after Spalding was dead. So JOseph must have resurrected Spalding for that theory to hold.

Anonymous | 3:23 p.m. Oct. 9, 2009

You guys sound like Bill Clinton trying to deny his affair. "It depends on what the definition of is, is?"

Uncle Reality | 3:37 p.m. Oct. 9, 2009

This wordiness is seen throughout the Book of Mormon. Another example is 4 Nephi 1:6:

And thus did the thirty and eighth year pass away, and also the thirty and ninth, and forty and first, and the forty and second, yea, even until forty and nine years had passed away, and also the fifty and first, and the fifty and second; yea, and even until fifty and nine years had passed away.

Would an author be so long-winded if he was struggling to engrave on metal? If it was so hard to engrave the record, as Nephi's brother Jacob complained, why didn't the author just say "Fifty nine years had passed away"?

JLE | 4:32 p.m. Oct. 9, 2009

Re 1:38pm You are an LDS fraud. Nice try though, but it didn't work. Try a little harder to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. However,YOU should be ashamed of yourself.

Uncle Reality | 4:35 p.m. Oct. 9, 2009

The redundancy in the Book of Mormon has even led one Mormon to propose a modern English version to make it easier to read. For example, Mosiah 18:30 reads:

"And now it came to pass that all this was done in Mormon, yea, by the waters of Mormon, in the forest that was near the waters of Mormon; yea, the place of Mormon, the waters of Mormon, the forest of Mormon, how beautiful are they to the eyes of them who there came to the knowledge of their Redeemer; yea, and how blessed are they, for they shall sing to his praise forever."

Again, would you be this long-winded if you were struggling to engrave this verse on metal plates? Of course not.

Jodi Nuffer | 4:42 p.m. Oct. 9, 2009

Here is an example of Mormon's (who supposedly "abridged" the Book of Mormon) one of his sentences:

"And it came to pass that after there had been false Christs, and their mouths had been shut, and they punished according to their crimes; and after there had been false prophets, and false preachers and teachers among the people, and all these having been punished according to their crimes; and after there having been much contention and many dissensions away unto the Lamanites, behold, it came to pass that king Benjamin, with the assistance of the holy prophets who were among his people–for behold, king Benjamin was a holy man, and he did reign over his people in righteousness; and there were many holy men in the land, and they did speak the word of God with power and with authority; and they did use much sharpness because of the stiffneckedness of the people–wherefore, with the help of these, king Benjamin, by laboring with all the might of his body and the faculty of his whole soul, and also the prophets, did once more establish peace in the land (Words of Mormon 1:15-18)."

RE: KC Mormon 1:26 | 5:53 p.m. Oct. 9, 2009

The first visions: In his 1832 account,he indicates that his Bible study led him to beleive that all of the churches were backsliders; while his 1838 account,he said that it never entered his heart that all were wrong. His 1832 claimed 'only a vision of Christ',while the 1838 story claimed a vision of the father and his Son. This later story had not been heard until after he dictated it in 1838. very confusing,but in 1844(King Folliet dicourses)he really adds to the contradicitons.
.

Andrew | 7:48 p.m. Oct. 9, 2009

Mormon: "I KNOW this candy is from SANTA CLAUS"

Researcher: "There was a video camera running all night. On the video, Santa Claus never shows up, but it DID catch your PARENTS putting candy in your stocking."

Mormon: "But you haven't tasted this candy, it's GOOD. My parents' candy isn't quite this good, so I KNOW this is from the North Pole.

Besides, my parents have NO FORMAL CANDY EDUCATION, so that PROVES this is from SANTA. I KNOW that if you taste this candy, you will KNOW it's from Santa."

BYU professor: “I've seen the footage. I've been able to identify a plate of half-eaten carrots in the background. Only REINDEER eat carrots, and Santa has not one but 8 Reindeer. I'll betcha in the yard there is reindeer poop all over the place.”

Church Leaders: "Santa appears throughout the entire videotape. But don't ever watch it, or you'll STUDY YOUR WAY OUT OF CHRISTMAS. This cunning device, VIDEO CAMERA, was invented by the Grinch, who's full of lies and deception.

Children who question Santa's candy get the naughty list, where there is no candy."

A Man's Perspective | 9:16 p.m. Oct. 9, 2009

Interesting how people use funny phrases to refer to the Book of Mormon: "fairy tale", "Santa Claus" tale, "Wizard of Oz" story, etc.

Well, where did the book come from? Spaulding theory? Or maybe View of the Hebrews argument? Or the "pious fraud" argument? Or an angry ex-Mormon who just can't help himself as he looks for the theory that makes Joseph Smith as evil of a fraud as can be. Or the theory that "Joseph Smith was a super-educated genius with a collosal library full of information to plagiarize". Or word-print studies that leave Joseph Smith out as a possible author. Or a dozen other theories...

Face it. Critics' arguments take faith also, perhaps even more than Book of Mormon believers. After all, early 1800s historical records should be a lot easier to come by than some artifact buried under 200 feet of earth in a massive jungle in Central America. At least the believers admit the necessity of belief and faith. Still, I have numerous volumes (hundreds of pages in each volume) that give interesting evidences for the Book of Mormon, that most really haven't been addressed well by critics.

Anonymous | 9:25 p.m. Oct. 9, 2009

That, is funny. I am going to save that one.

Bill | 12:26 a.m. Oct. 10, 2009

The Church will not stop using the historical claims as it is a part of the Book of Mormon itself. As we have stated over and over: You must take the Book of Mormon on faith and faith alone. To try and prove it intellectually is nothing more than taking it by the precepts of man.

As stated the natural man is an enemy to GOD. If you are willing to read the Book of Mormon, ponder it and approach GOD with real intent, a broken heart and a contrite spirit, then and only then will the Holy Ghost/Spirit reveal to you the truth of the Book of Mormon. That is what Elder Holland was saying on Sunday during conference and that it is what I'm saying now.

You can disbelieve all you want based on your intellectual findings but that is the natural man. My witness comes from personal revelation given to me by a means that only can and will come from God. I know this and I bear witness of that.

Crawfish | 5:56 a.m. Oct. 10, 2009

@ A Man's Perspective...
Neither the number 8 nor the number 87 equal 100. But one of them is a great deal closer and more probable than the other.
So it is with the BOM. Sure, the critics can't make an airtight case against it. But 2 things you forget:
a) the burden of proof is on you.
b) the BOM being true depends on about a thousand other speculations being true, the most glaring one being that god even exists.

Try again to obfuscate. Didn't work this time.

Confused scripture reader | 6:35 a.m. Oct. 10, 2009

DN states: "a small group of Israelites coming to a largely populated continent."

But I thought there were no others here in America.

Lehi believed they were alone in the Americas, "it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations" (2 Ne. 1:8) and that America will be saved and "none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord" (2 Ne 1:6 -- see v. 5-9). (See also, 1 Ne 13, 2 Ne 3:2, 2 Ne 10:10-12, 3 Ne 20:14...)

The BoM also says the Jaredites were here. But the Jaredites were led to a land "where never had man been" (Ether 2:5). They were scattered from the tower of babel (Ether 1) after the flood, which LDS doctrine holds as a true event (Alma 10:22, Moses 7:43-51). And they lived and died, to the last man, Coriantumr (Ether 15, Omni 1:21)

So, who else was here? The flood wiped any Bering migrations out, right?

caedmon | 7:41 a.m. Oct. 10, 2009

Sorry, but DNA is just the latest nail in the coffin of the historicity of the Book of Mormon. It joins the nails of archaeology, linguistics, anthropology, and common sense.

There is not a single non-Mormon scholar who studies the ancient Americas and accepts the claim that the Book of Mormon is a factual record of people, culture, or events of pre-Columbian America.

Page:
1
2
Next >

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.