Note:  Mormon Apologist Jeff Lindsay's comments are in italics . 

This is a compilation of several posts and letters

What apologists like Lindsay fail to explain is the complete lack of
mention in the BoM of any contact with all these other peoples that the
Lehites were supposed to have intermarried with, thus diluting their DNA.

  Such a scenario is inconsistent with the BoM text: 

  - When the BoM peoples DID come into contact with other peoples, it was a
big deal, it was recorded (the discovery of the Mulekites, in Omni 1:14, or
the discovery of the existence of the Jaredites by Limhi, in Mosiah 28). 

  - Authentic Israelite histories (Old Testament) are replete with the
records of the Israelites' contacts with neighboring peoples, their names,
their wars, their mastery over them or their subjection to them.  There is
no such mention in the BoM.

  - The Israelites, being a "chosen people", set apart, had an abhorrence of
intermarrying with other, non-Israelite peoples.  When they did, it brought
down the wrath of God.  It is primarily because of this taboo that the Jews
have been able to maintain their relative racial purity for 2500 years.
Would the righteous Nephites have so quickly forgotten this taboo?  Why
would no Nephite prophet rail against such intermarriage, in the same way
that his Old World counterpart in Jerusalem did?  Even intermarriage with
Lamanites was discouraged - which is why God gave them a dark (= ugly?) skin
(2 Ne 5:21-23).  Why would intermarriage with NON-Israelite peoples go
unmentioned, whether condoned, encouraged, or banned?

  It is also completely inconsistent with the now popular "limited
geography" theory of the leading Mormon apologists, by which the BoM events
all took place in an area of only a few hundred miles' diameter in Central
America and southern Mexico (Yucatan, Isthmus of Tehuantepec).  That area
has been continuously populated for ten thousand years.  Were the Lehites
invisible?  Or were the native inhabitants invisible to the Lehites?

  It also does not help them to argue that "Lamanite" doesn't necessarily
mean "descended from Israel" - they should re-read Mormon 7, where Mormon
addresses the Lamanites and tells them unequivocally (7:2):  "Know ye that
ye are of the house of Israel"; (7:10) " are a remnant of the seed of

Richard in Oregon

Jeff Lindsay (Mormon Apologist) wrote:

I hope no one falls for the trick of dismissing the Book of Mormon based on
the disconnect between modern DNA analysis and the theory of a global flood.

Uhhhh....So it's your opinion that the LDS doctrine of the global flood is a
"theory?"  Can you cite any statements from any LDS authorities agreeing with
that characterization?

It's true that many Christians and Latter-day Saints have believed or do
believe that the earth is young and that a global flood wiped out all life
all over the world. But the revelations from God do not require such a

You are either ignorant or a liar, Mr. Lindsay.  Which is it?  The works which
LDS canon accept as "revelations from God" make it clear that the Noachic
flood was worldwide, and killed every human except the eight people aboard Noah's ark.
A few references:

Genesis 7:19-20 (even the highest mountains were covered with water)

Genesis 7:21-23 (every human on earth drowned except for the eight on the ark)

1 Peter 3:18-20 (only eight souls saved by water)

D&C 138:8-9 (ditto)

Moses 8:25, 30 (God vows to "destroy all flesh from off the earth" except for
the eight people on the ark)

Abraham 1:23-24 (Noah's daughter-in-law "Egyptus" discovers the land of Egypt
when "it was under water", obviously referring to the receding flood waters.)

In addition to these canonized scriptural references, many Mormon leaders
have repeated the concept that the flood was worldwide and killed all humans but
the eight aboard the ark.  In fact, LDS leaders have stated that the Negro race
was "preserved through the flood" via "Egyptus," the daughter of Ham, who was a
descendant of the "accursed" Cain, who, according to LDS doctrine, was the
first Negro.  If the flood had not been worldwide, and had not drowned all
other Negroes on earth, LDS leaders would not have needed to state that the
Negro race was "preserved" through Egyptus.

I can cite numerous other statements from LDS leaders over the years which
teach that all humans living today descended from the eight people who
survived the global flood.  If the flood only affected a small area, why would LDS
leaders teach that everyone alive today descended from those eight people?

The term "all the earth" in the Bible can refer to a local land and
need not have global implications. I believe there was a big flood, perhaps
even several big floods anciently, but I do not feel a need to believe in a
global flood, and many Christians (including LDS Christians) share my view,
while also accepting the divinity of the Bible and Book of Mormon.

To the contrary, if you or any other Mormons do not believe in the literal
global flood exactly as canonized by official LDS scriptures, then you are
every bit as "apostate" as Tom Murphy, whom LDS leaders attempted to
excommunicate because of his stance that the BOM is not literal.   The issue
here is NOT what your opinion is, but rather what official LDS doctrine
Where are any official statements from any LDS authorities that the flood
was not global or did not kill all humans on earth but the eight? 
If the flood was local, rather than global, then please tell us why the Lord
instructed Noah to gather two of every animal onto the ark for preservation.

If you believe that Noah's flood was local, rather than global, please share
your opinion on approximately which areas of the earth were covered by that
flood, citing scholarly references to support your views.  Hint:  Study
scholarly data which indicates an unbroken chain of civilization in
geographical areas around and in the timeframe of the alleged Noah's flood.
That should tell you how small or large any actual flood would have been.

Canonized scripture does not teach that every human being in the Americas
was wiped out 5,000 years ago.

Yes, it most certainly does, as the verses I referenced above clearly show.

Many people have assumed that, but the opinions and interpretations of men,
even prophets, are not infallible.

If the opinions of even prophets are not infallible, meaning that they can
express opinions which are incorrect, then why are LDS leaders attempting to
excommunicate Tom Murphy, a mere rank-and-file Mormon, for merely expressing
his opinions about the BOM?  Why is Murphy's opinion that the BOM is not
literal history any more "apostate" than your opinion that the global flood
is not literal history?  Does the LDS disciplinary system hold rank-and-file
Mormons like Murphy to a higher standard of correctness in opinions than they
hold their "prophets"?  Why shouldn't your stake president charge you with
apostasy, just as Tom Murphy's stake president did?

It is only when God speaks that we can be certain, and we do not hold the
unbiblical view that every action and word and view of a prophet if
automatically infallible and direct from God. We accept the human touch as
inevitable in this life.

I have cited "God's words" on the flood from official canonized LDS doctrine.

If the Bible (which is official LDS doctrine) is wrong about the flood being
worldwide, then why can't the BOM (which is also official LDS doctrine) be
wrong on a number of items as well?  For instance, what evidence is there
that 230,000 Christ-worshipping, steel-sword using, horse-and-chariot using
"Nephites" existed in the Americas circa 400 A. D.?  Is there any more
evidence for the existence of the "Nephites" than there is for the global flood, which
you claim is a myth?  If not, then why do you disbelieve the flood, but
believe in the historicity of the BOM?  Why should we accept your layman's opinions
on these matters above those of the "prophets"?

One verse in the Book of Mormon that has been used to suggest that we must
believe in a global flood wiping out all life on this continent is Ether
"For behold, they rejected all the words of Ether; for he truly told them of
all things, from the beginning of man; and that after the waters had receded
from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other
lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men
should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof;"
I read this as referring to the waters of creation that receded as the land
rose (Gen. 1).

That may be true, but can you quote any official LDS sources which agree with
your opinion?   And exactly how does your interpretation of that verse negate
all the other verses from official LDS doctrine I've cited which indicate a
worldwide flood which killed all humans on earth except eight?

But there may have been other waters, maybe even flood
waters. Good grief, myths about an ancient flood are definitely found in the
Americas, so maybe there was some heavy flood action at one time. But it
does not say that all life was wiped out here.

According to Joseph Smith Jr., the first humans lived on what is now the
American continent, specifically Missouri.  That means that Noah & Co. built
their ark somewhere in America, to escape floodwaters in America.  The ark
reportedly came to rest on Mt. Ararat in Turkey.  That means that the
floodwaters extended from Missouri to Turkey, and Noah & Co. saw no land nor
life between those two areas.  And that means that the flood had to have been
worldwide.  Unless, of course, you wish to simply disbelieve the whole story.

If you do, then you're an apostate Mormon just like Tom Murphy is.

I believe we Christians have had to recalibrate our views on creation and
the flood and many things in light of modern knowledge - not because God is
dead or because there is nothing divine in the scriptures, but because the
human touch has resulted in incorrect understanding. Yes, we are fallible.

What does official LDS doctrine teach about the creation and the flood?  If
LDS doctrine or leaders are fallible in their statements concerning the flood,
then why can't they be wrong about the BOM being a literal history as well?

Get over it. There is no reason to leave the Church or lose faith in Christ
because we know something better today than Paul or Moses or Joseph Smith
did in the past.

The question is far greater than  knowing "something better today."   The
issue is that the knowledge we have today directly contradicts what official LDS
doctrine claims is the truth.  The reason people should leave the LDS church
is because it teaches things which are not the truth.  And yet, the LDS church
claims to be more "true" than any other belief system in existence.  IOW, the
LDS church cannot live up to its claims of truth and authority, therefore
there is no need to be a Mormon.

The scientific method requires that we consider alternatives carefully.

Indeed, the scientific method is requiring LDS leaders and apologists to
reconsider their long-held teachings that the "Book of Mormon people" were
the first settlers in America.  And, as evidenced by your statements, the
scientific method is causing Mormons to abandon the concept of the global
flood (although it's clearly mandated by official LDS canon).  And, the scientific
method is what caused such Mormons as Dr. Simon Southerton (a former bishop)
and Dr. Tom Murphy to conclude that the BOM's claims are not supported by the
data. So, if the scientific method can require us to alter beliefs in such things
as the flood, then why can't the scientific method require us to abandon a
belief that the BOM is literal history as well?

Sometimes data need to be examined carefully before we can make a valid
conclusion about a hypothesis.

You mean sorta like Tom Murphy did with the DNA evidence that shows no Hebrew
ancestry among Amerinds?  Is there any data that you could ever examine that
would make you conclude that the BOM is not a literal history?  Or do you
hold a pre-determined conclusion which is inalterable in spite of any evidence
whatsoever to the contrary?

Examine carefully, think, consider alternatives.

Have you carefully considered the alternative that the BOM is a 19th-century

Understanding the relationship between science and religion
requires work and thought and patience, not cheap shots to end further
inquiry based on straw man arguments.

I agree.  So, how does the LDS official doctrine of the global flood relate
to what science indicates?  How does the question of the BOM's historicity
relate to what science indicates? 

You can believe that this world happened by chance and that there is nothing
but myth in the scriptures.

Apparently, you're the one who believes that the scriptures contain myths.
Like the global flood which killed all but eight people, for instance.  Why
do you believe that the scriptural teaching of a global flood is a myth on one
hand, but criticize others for believing that the scriptures are a myth on
the other hand?  Do you not possess the intellectual ability to remain consistent
in any arguments you make?

As a scientist, I also believe in God and
believe that we all have a lot to learn - including living prophets and
apostles - before we will understand the truth about Creation, life, the
origins of man, and the history of the Americas.

Are you implying that the claims and teachings of Mormon leaders and
doctrines are subject to change as we learn more from science?  If so, then what is the
use of relying on them for truth to begin with?  If increased scientific
knowledge forces Mormon leaders to alter their beliefs, then why not just
rely on the science and dump the fallible Mormon leaders?

But meanwhile, I have solid
personal and intellectual evidence for the authenticity of the scriptures -
not their infallibility - but their authenticity, and the reality of God and
Restoration of His Gospel. Feel free to disagree, but don't expect cheap
shots to replace the work of real investigation.

If you have "solid personal and intellectual evidence for the authenticity of
the scriptures," then why do you reject the global flood as an unbelievable
myth?  Are you a "cafeteria Mormon," who believes that you can pick and
choose which LDS doctrines you wish to accept, and discard the ones you don't like?
Do you believe the words in D&C 1:14?  What distinguishes your attitude
towards LDS doctrines from Tom Murphy's?

If the earth was created over billions of years instead of six 24-hour days,
could the Bible still be true? Yes.

Why are you defending the truth claims of the Bible, when above, you reject
its words concerning the global flood?

If there were many others in the Americas besides the Nephites, could the
Book of Mormon still be true. Absolutely.

No, the LDS doctrine of the global flood sinks the idea that there were other
people in the Americas besides the "BOM people."  You cannot put the LDS
doctrine of the global flood off in a corner by itself and pretend that it
doesn't affect the claims of the BOM.
Furthermore, there isn't any evidence that any "BOM people" existed in the
Americas, at any time.  There is only evidence of Asian-descended peoples. 
The BOM cannot even begin to be "true" until you can show some evidence for its
authenticity.  You cannot do that until you can show a DNA relationship
between Amerinds and Hebrews from the timeframe the BOM claims it occurred.

Mopologist Jeff Lindsay wrote:

I hope no one falls for the trick of dismissing the Book of Mormon based on
the disconnect between modern DNA analysis and the theory of a global
It's true that many Christians and Latter-day Saints have believed or do
believe that the earth is young and that a global flood wiped out all life
all over the world. But the revelations from God do not require such a
belief. The term "all the earth" in the Bible can refer to a local land and
need not have global implications.

Ex-Mormon DuWayne A responded:

Jeff Lindsay, apologist for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, is lying about what the LDS Church teaches.  Why does he feel
the need to do this?  For those wanting to see what the LDS Church
teaches, consider the following quotations from official LDS sources
and LDS prophets, seers, and revelators:

"Not everyone throughout the modern world, however, accepts the story
of Noah and the Flood. Many totally disbelieve the story, seeing it as
a simple myth or fiction. … Still other people accept parts of the
Flood story, acknowledging that there may have been a local,
charismatic preacher, such as Noah, and a localized flood that covered
only a specific area of the world, such as the region of the Tigris
and Euphrates Rivers or perhaps even the whole of Mesopotamia. … There
is a third group of people—those who accept the literal message of the
Bible regarding Noah, the ark, and the Deluge. Latter-day Saints
belong to this group. In spite of the world's arguments against the
historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic
evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a
prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning,
built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark,
and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are
assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple
testimonies of God's prophets."  [Donald W. Parry, The Flood and the
Tower of Babel, Ensign, Jan. 1998, 35.]

According to Mormon apostle, prophet, and seer McConkie, "In the days
of Noah the Lord sent a universal flood which completely immersed the
whole earth and destroyed all flesh except that preserved on the ark.
(Gen. 6; 7; 8; 9; Moses 7:38-45; 8; Ether 13.2.) "Noah was born to
save seed of everything, when the earth was washed of its wickedness
by the flood." (Teachings, p. 12) This flood was the baptism of the
earth; before it occurred the land was all in one place, a condition
that will again prevail during the millennial era. (D&C 133:23-24)"
[page 289].

Duwayne A.


An Ex-Mormon (Monson) replied:

From the Syllabus for Religion 327 – Lesson 12 Noah and the Flood,
being taught this semester at BYU:

begin quote from syllabus -

Was the Flood universal?

Moses 8:30 - "I will destroy all flesh from off the earth."

Genesis 6:13

Genesis 7:21-23

Ether 13:2 - "after the waters has receded from off the face of this
land . . ."

"The earth . . . has been baptized with water, and will, in the future
be baptized with fire and the Holy Ghost, to be prepared to go back
into the celestial presence of God." (Brigham Young, Discourses of
Brigham Young, 603)

"Latter-day Saints look upon the earth as a living organism, one which
is gloriously filling "the measure of its creation." They look upon
the flood as a baptism of the earth, symbolizing a cleansing of the
impurities of the past, and the beginning of a new life. This has been
repeatedly taught by the leaders of the Church. The deluge was an
immersion of the earth in water. (Elder John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and
Reconciliations, 127-28)

"The Lord baptized the earth for the remission of sins and it has been
once cleansed from the filthiness that has gone out of it which was in
the inhabitants who dwelt upon its face." (Brigham Young, JD, 1:274)

"The first ordinance instituted for the cleansing of the earth, was
that of immersion in water; it was buried in the liquid element, and
all things sinful upon the face of it were washed away. As it came
forth from the ocean flood, like the new-born child, it was innocent,
it arose to newness of life; it was its second birth from the womb of
mighty waters--a new world issuing from the ruins of the old, clothed
with all the innocency of its first creation." (Orson Pratt, JD 1:331)

"Some doubt that there was a flood, but by modern revelation we know
that it did take place. By modern revelation we know that for more
than a century, Noah pleaded with the people to repent, but in their
willful stubbornness they would not listen to him. (Mark E. Petersen,
Ensign, Nov. 1981, 65)

"The whole family of man was destroyed, except Noah and those seven
souls who received his testimony, a part of his family, and a part
only, for there were children that Noah had who rejected his
testimony, and who also shared in the destruction that came upon the
inhabitants of the earth." (George Q. Cannon, JD, 26:81)

- end quote from syllabus

Jeff, here's an idea for you.  Go check with the Mormon church and
it's institutions to see what is believed before you come in here and
make a complete jackass out of your self.  You apologists sure know
how to show your incompetence.


Ex-Mormon DuWayne An replied:

And the *most* important aspect of this is that Jeff does little more
than spout his personal opinion.  While the critics are busy quoting
the Book of Mormon and LDS prophets, Jeff is busy lying about what the
Book of Mormon says, and making naked assertions.

It never claims that all Native Americans have Jewish DNA.

Here Jeff uses a false strawman.  Critics don't say the Native
Americans were Jewish.  We quote the Book of Mormon, which says the
ancient Americans were of the house of Joseph.  Here's an example:

[Jesus said] Ye are my disciples; and ye are a light unto this people,
who are a remnant of the house of Joseph. [3 Nephi 15:12]

Moroni said unto them: Behold, we are a remnant of the seed of Jacob;
yea, we are a remnant of the seed of Joseph, whose coat was rent by
his brethren into many pieces; yea, and now behold, let us remember to
keep the commandments of God, or our garments shall be rent by our
brethren, and we be cast into prison, or be sold, or be slain. [Alma

It clearly permits - and even points to - the presence of other peoples in
the land when Lehi's small boatload of people landed.

The above statement by Jeff Lindsay is false.  In fact, when Lehi
arrived in the Promised Land he specifically said that the land had
been kept from other nations as an inheritance for his "seed."  Here
is the reference:

And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the
knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the
land, that there would be no place for an inheritance. [2 Nephi 1:8]

Are you starting to notice a pattern here?  Jeff whines about people
not going on what the Book of Mormon actually says, but his post is
all naked assertions, without quoting the Book of Mormon at all.

If the Book of Mormon is really true, why do Mormons feel they have to
lie about it?

Critics are relying on
somebody's (I think McConkie's) 1981 statement about the "principal"
ancestors in the forward to the Book of Mormon to suggest that the Book of
Mormon teaches that the only DNA in the Americas should be Jewish DNA. This
is a straw man.

Let's help Jeff out.  Here is what the angel Moroni supposedly told

He [the angel Moroni] said there was a book deposited, written upon
gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this
continent, and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that
the fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as
delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants; [Pearl of Great
Price, JSH:34]

Notice the very clear language.  Moroni said the Book of Mormon was
about the ancient inhabitants of *THIS* continent.  Not some of them.
Not part of them.  But OF them.

This is what the LDS god said on the subject:

And now, behold, I say unto you that you shall go unto the Lamanites
and preach my gospel unto them; and inasmuch as they receive thy
teachings thou shalt cause my church to be established among them; and thou
shalt have revelations, but write them not by way of commandment.And
now, behold, I say unto you that it is not revealed, and no man
knoweth where the city Zion shall be built, but it shall be given
hereafter. Behold,I say unto you that it shall be on the borders by
the Lamanites.[D&C 28:8-10. Notice how the LDS god identifies the
Lamanites as the North American Indians living near Missouri]

Behold, I say unto you, Peter, that you shall take your journey with
your brother Oliver; for the time has come that it is expedient in me
that you shall open your mouth to declare my gospel; therefore, fear
not, but give heed unto the words and advice of your brother, which he
shall give you. And be you afflicted in all his afflictions, ever
lifting up your heart unto me in prayer and faith, for his and your
deliverance; for I have given unto him power to build up my church
among the Lamanites; [D&C 30:5-6.  Notice again the way the LDS god
says the Indians were Lamanites.]

AND now concerning my servant Parley P. Pratt, behold, I say unto him
that as I live I will that he shall declare my gospel and learn of me,
and be meek and lowly of heart. And that which I have appointed unto
him is that he shall go with my servants, Oliver Cowdery and Peter
Whitmer, Jun., into the wilderness among the Lamanites. [D&C 32:1-2.
The lds god is consistent in calling the Indians Lamanites.]

One simply has to ask, why do apologists for the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS, or Mormon) lie about what their own
scriptures teach?

If you want to attack the Book of Mormon, attack it based on an informed
and careful reading on the text.

Jeff needs to take a healthy dose of his own medicine.  He needs to
stop lying about what the Book of Mormon says, and stop pretending
that his unsupported and uninformed naked assertions about the Book of
Mormon represent anything of substance regarding the LDS Church.

Duwayne A.


Recovery from Mormonism -   

Listing of additional short Topics  |  Main Page