Comments about ‘LDS Church posts topic page on Book of Mormon and DNA studies’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Jan. 31 2014 5:00 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Mint Julip

@AllBlack, Don't feel too reassured by the Eurasia DNA finding and National Geographic article. The timeline is very problematic and can't support the BOM narrative since it is about 18,000 years older than the Mormon's teaching of the age of the earth.

the truth
Holladay, UT

No one truly knows where the BOM lands are.

BOM pictures are influence by ruins found ancient culturss of mexico and central America,

and they may be quite wrong.

It may have taken place in north America, in the north east, or in the south east around florida, or out west around san Francisco,

or could have been in meso-America,

or could in smaller geographic region like around a peninsula in chile.

There no evidence in the BOM they built with stone, but they were very skilled with wood. and built defensive walls out of earth.

No one knows the extent of the geographic destruction talked of in 3rd nephi. though parts seemed quite great perhaps enough to change rivers. destroy narrow necks of land.

There is indication they again the built with wood as cities were destroyed by fire and by wind.

So look for place with lots of wood, a place where large animals currently or once existed, mountainous and warm, a very deep body of water to the west, a man-made desolate area to the north, and a geography that hid a nearby population, the mulekites, for years.

Maryville, MO

Thinkman: I think you are sadly mistaken as the Title Page of the Book of Mormon has never been changed since it was first translated by Joseph Smith. However, the Introduction to The Book of Morman has gone through quite a bit of changes. In fact the Introduction was not part of the original Book of Mormon at all and was later added to the Book of Mormon just as Joseph Smith First Vision. Bruce R McConkie coined the Introduction that stated the Lamanites were the Principle ancestors of the American Indians. This was recently, as you have stated, changed. This to me is nothing but sematics and carries very little weight. If this is what caused one to question the Book of Mormon for any reason then they never had a testimony of the Book of Mormon in the first place. The other is one can have a testimony but not be converted to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Book of Mormon speaks for itself and will carry lots of weight in the judgement of one as it testifies of the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

Bob Pomeroy
Bisbee, AZ

The Book of Mormon itself refers to several populations arriving in the western hemisphere both before and after the history it traces. Thus it is extremely unlikely that any LDS leader ever proclaimed that all the inhabitants thereof were descendants of Lehi - Nephi.

play by the rules

Far more interested in the symbolic and religiously significance of artifacts discovered in the Americas.


This is one of those things that will not really change anybody's opinion, but is useful for defusing arguments regardless.

Classic Mom
Grants Pass, OR

My testimony of the Book of Mormon is based on reading the book and who is ancestor to the modern Native American has nothing to do with it. Never has been a concern or a thought and my conversion is wholly unrelated to that topic. Given that modern science just blew the doors off its own theories of where Native Americans came from, what is the point of a debate with no stable benchmark to refer to?

This debate is remarkably similar to "No steel" in Israel proudly trumpeted as proof the BOM was false. Until steel was discovered repeatedly In the 1980's. And those who claimed the BOM was false because there was no steel in that era didn't change their minds and say oh, the book is true. Neither will you when DNA studies discover plausibility of some Native Americans having Middle Eastern roots... Oh wait they just did that. If the test is not valid both ways, it is a false test. Something not discovered " yet" is not proof of anything.

Glendora, CA

The Holy Ghost will always trump debate about scientific talking points.

Open and honest
Manchester, 00

2 Nephi 1:9 Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever.

cohoes, NY

I'm glad the Church is finally addressing important issues like this on its official website.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

there's no DNA evidence to prove the Bible,
there's no DNA evidence to prove the Quran,
there's no DNA evidence to prove the Hindu Veda,

The point is,
If you use this a way to discredit one religion,
then you must apply it the same way to discredit all others.

layton, UT

RE: Open Minded Mormon, "If you use this a way to discredit one religion".

1 Nephi 13:28,…” there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book(Bible)

Yet,Non-Catholic historians admit, it can be demonstrated easily that early Church writers, such as Ignatius of Antioch, Eusebius, Clement of Rome, and Polycarp, had no conception of Mormon doctrine, and they knew nothing of a "great apostasy." Nowhere in their writings can one find references to Christians embracing any of the peculiarly Mormon doctrines, such as polytheism, polygamy, celestial marriage, and temple ceremonies. If the Church of the apostolic age was the prototype of today’s Mormon church, it must have had all these beliefs and practices. But why is there no evidence of them in the early centuries, before the alleged apostasy began? Catholic Answers

Casey See

I would like to add one more comment regarding the North American theory or Great Lakes Theory. First, I respect those that have presented it, but it has two, in my opinion, very large flaws.

1. For it to work, Lehi's family would have had to sailed around Africa, up the Mississippi, up the Ohio, and up the Alegheny without choosing to settle anywhere along that route. Also, they would have had to portage over the Great Falls of the Ohio. Mulek's people would have had to sailed up the St. Lawarence nearly 300 hundred of miles before disembarking.

2. The Narrow neck of land would only allow for a North Countries of less than 20 miles before running into Lake Erie or going east instead of North.

As someone else mentioned the lack of snow, The only reference to snow, is Nephi's comments regarding driven snow. Did Nephi even see "true driven snow" in the Middle East? (See 1 Nephi 11:8)

There are other issues I have with this theory, but these are my two biggest concerns.

Skyler Goode
Kissimmee, FL

I think the Book of Mormon provides its own best evidence for the DNA issue. God has from time to time made changes, as he did with the children of Cain in Genesis, which could have resulted from an altering of their DNA. Likewise, in the Book of Mormon, the Lord altered the appearance of the Lamanites, that they "might not be enticing" unto the Nephites.(see 2 Nephi 5:21). If the Lord did indeed cause these differences through the alteration of their DNA, and the Lamanites remained in the land after the destruction of the Nephites, it would seem only logical their DNA would contain differences which could make them difficult to link conclusively with other peoples. A study on the differences between Native American DNA and Asian DNA might prove most interesting.Nothing at all was known of DNA in Joseph Smith's day,yet the DNA differences might well be accounted for in The Book of Mormon itself!

Far East USA, SC

"I would like to add one more comment regarding the North American theory or Great Lakes Theory. First, I respect those that have presented it, but it has two, in my opinion, very large flaws."

Why is this being debated at all. Early prophets, including Joseph Smith already settled the discussion.

They clearly told everyone that the Hill Cumorah in New York was where the battles and civilizations occurred.

This is only being debated based on the lack of any supporting evidence in New York. Quite the pivot.


I'm glad I don't have to have everything proven to me in a scientific way. Those who live by "science" alone are missing the entire picture. Where did science come from? Where did WE come from? A big bang? That is laughable. There is no purely scientific way to describe how we all got here, how the earth and other planets came to be. You can't say that organization came from utter chaos. It just isn't true.

Grandma 20
Allen, TX

The greatest and most important message of the Book of Mormon is NOT where Lehi and his people landed or where the many cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon were located. BUT -- the Book of Mormon is Another Testament and witness of the Divinity of Jesus Christ and His mission as proclaimed by the Prophets on the American continent (which includes both North and South America). The Book or Mormon supports the prophesies and teachings of the Prophets of the Old Testament about Jesus Christ and His mission.

Dan Maloy
Enid, OK

@ Cats - Somewhere in Time, UT ".....Don't lose faith in the things you know because of the things you don't know. The Book of Mormon is true. I know this through personal revelation from God. I feel sorry for those who choose to discard their faith and use DNA to justify it."

Amen, to that, sister!

sandy, ut

All of this talk would be a moot point if we only had the golden plates themselves to examine... But they are conveniently missing. How long before the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon will be translated? Will Moroni deliver the plates again for translation at that time? My guess is that it will never happen - but people will continue to say just be patient, just be patient, all the way until the end of time.

Salt Lake City, UT

@San Diego
That article about Native Americans having Eurasian origins is based on the bones of a 24,000 year old Siberian boy. So the source of those genes in the Americas would be from the land crossing estimated around 16,500 years ago from people around Siberia.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments