How does the Local Geographic Theory

[GDTeacher]

I think that you are probably allowed the leeway if you desire to have it. The manual can be fellowed blindly or be used as a guide...but the choice is yours to make. I don't think that the thought police are near by ready to pounce on you if you decide to spice it up a bit with more info that is not included in the manual.

Can you teach different topics that are not in the guide? Probably not. There is to be an organized procedure for the topic...but I think that you will have much freedom in presenting the lesson.

Whether an individual teacher is allowed leeway or not is probably dependent upon several variables. The local leadership and their interpretation of the requirement is probably chief among the variables. The local leaderships' perception of the capacity and knowledge of the individual teacher is also a significant variable.

In some situations, the teacher has a great deal of leeway, in some cases not.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Hi, Rollo. And what does "predominant blood lineage" mean? Haplogroup DNA? Blood type? mt DNA? Or something as yet unidentified by scientists which has brought about the fulfillment of the promise given to Abraham? And which will bring about the fulfillment of the promise given to the descendants of the Lamanites?

I offered up McConkie's statement, within the context of our discussing what the Brethren meant by the word "principal" in the Introduction first included in the 1981 edition of the BofM. You seemed to be arguing that they meant "principal" only in terms of 'most important' rather than 'primary' ancestor, the latter being how I think most members read it. I think it's clear from McConkie's statement that the Brethren intended that the word "principal," in describing the Lamanite ancestors of Native Americans, was intended to mean more like "dominant blood lineage," which DNA has established clearly is not the case. In sum, the "Introduction" is not part of the canon, and should be changed or clarified on this point in light of recent DNA evidence.

[Rollo Tomasi]

I don't quite get what you are trying to prove here. I do believe that Mormon Doctrine as a book as been covered before. Mormon Doctrine is not scripture nor is it canon. Bruce had his ideas and others had their ideas when that book was written. Unfortunately, the book has the title Mormon Doctrine.

As noted above, I offered up McConkie's statement to show what the Brethren likely intended by the word "principal" in describing the Lamanites as ancestors to Native Americans (I believe McConkie had a hand in drafting the "Introduction" first placed in the 1981 BofM). Charity seemed to argue that the Brethren only meant 'most important' ancestor or something like that, but I think it's obvious from McConkie that the use of the word "principal" was intended to convey that the Lamanites were the 'primary' ancestors of Native Americans (i.e., the reason he used the phrase "dominant blood lineage"). We now know this to be incorrect, and the Introduction should be changed or clarified to reflect this new knowledge.

I never said Mormon Doctrine is doctrine or canon; but neither is the "Introduction" to the BofM, which means it could be changed quite easily.

[charity]

Rollo, what is a primary ancestor? If you are using the term to mean one single ancestor, not one of a particular generational set, that can only refer to either Adam or Noah, since those are the only two times when there was just one (well, two) ancestors of the entire subsequent population. Otherwise, all the individuals in a generational set have to be considered equal, in terms of probability.

However, the way I interpret "principal" to mean that one out of the set is more important from a covenant perspective is, I believe, a valid interpretation. So there is no need for any recall, recanting, or apology.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Rollo, what is a primary ancestor? If you are using the term to mean one single ancestor, not one of a particular generational set, that can only refer to either Adam or Noah, since those are the only two times when there was just one (well, two) ancestors of the entire subsequent population. Otherwise, all the individuals in a generational set have to be considered equal, in terms of probability.

Like McConkie, I would consider one's 'primary' ancestor to be based on dominant blood lineage. I don't think there is any doubt that for 175 years or so the Brethren (rightly or wrongly) have looked upon Native Americans as having Lamanites as their predominant ancestors. What we are finding out now from DNA is that Lamanite ancestry is so slight (if it even exists) as to be undetectable.

However, the way I interpret "principal" to mean that one out of the set is more important from a covenant perspective is,  I believe, a valid interpretation. So there is no need for any recall, recanting, or apology.

Your interpretation of "principal" certainly can mean 'most important' in terms of covenants, etc., but I don't think this was what the Brethren meant by "principal" in the 1981 Introduction (hence, my giving the McConkie statement), which was my only point. Thus, it should be changed or clarified to prevent further confusion in light of recent evidence.

[thesometimesaint]

RT:

When I got my Pat. Bless. It gave my lineage to the Tribe of Ephram.

I don't believe there is a molecular biologist around that could tease out that from MY DNA.

[Rollo Tomasi]

When I got my Pat. Bless. It gave my lineage to the Tribe of Ephram.

I don't believe there is a molecular biologist around that could tease out that from MY DNA.

Probably because your lineage is likely via 'adoption' (as is mine as a member of the Tribe of Ephraim). In contrast, Native Americans have been viewed since the Restoration as literal blood descendants of Lamanites (i.e., biological, not adoptive).

[thesometimesaint]

RT:

We are all blood relatives to one degree or another.

[charity]

Rollo, I do not see where you have defined "dominant blood lineage." Are you going to use numbers of the generational set?

[Rollo Tomasi]

We are all blood relatives to one degree or another.

Hence the use of "principal," "primary," "dominant blood lineage," etc. in relation to the ancestry of Native Americans.

[thesometimesaint]

RT:

I am of the opinion that given the small size of Lehis group, and almost 3000 years of intermarrige. Teasing out the specific Hebrew contribution would be next to, if not, impossible. Maybe our understanding of the word "Principle" needs to be expanded.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Rollo, I do not see where you have defined "dominant blood lineage." Are you going to use numbers of the generational set?

I haven't, nor do I see any need. I simply read McConkie's phrase to mean 'most prominent' or 'primary.' In fact, before making the statement I quoted above, McConkie refers to possible Jaredite, Asian (via Bering Strait), Scandinavian (the pre-Columbus Vikings) and European (via the Spanish Conquistadors) "blood" in Native American veins for some "dilution of the pure Lamanitish blood," which explains why he then uses the word "dominant" to describe Native Americans' "blood lineage of Israel."

[Rollo Tomasi]

Maybe our understanding of the word "Principle" needs to be expanded.

I tend to agree, which is why I suggested above that the Brethren should change or clarify the Introduction's reference to "principal ancestor." The expansive definition of "principal" you mention, imo, was not what was meant when the Introduction was first published in 1981, but subsequent evidence reflects that a change or clarification is in order. This should be no problem, since the Introduction (as far as I can tell) is neither doctrine nor canon.

[Daniel Peterson]

We don't need the LGT to explain away horses and steel; but that is exactly why it was developed.

That claim is flatly untrue.

Advocates of limited geographical models have spelled out the reasons for their views in abundance over the past roughly eight decades, and neither horses nor steel play any role in those explanations. Many of these explanations are easily available, in print. There is no justification for spreading falsehoods about them, and, at a minimum, it seems foolhardy and pointless to do so.

[charity]

Rollo wrote: "I simply read McConkie's phrase to mean 'most prominent' or 'primary.' "

Rollo, maybe you interpreted wrong? And then you replied to the sometimesaint that you feel the Brethren need to clarify. Why? What does that have to do with any doctrine of salvation? If the Brethren were to take their time to do everything you think they ought to do they would get no useful work done at all.

[jayneedoe]

Jaybear:

Unfortunately for the critics. The Church readily admits that EVERYTHING that is said by a Prophet is not "Inspired".

I often wonder what President Hinckley is "speculating" about today. Obviously I'll never know because I will be dead in 100 years.

Jaynee

[jayneedoe]

RT:

We are all blood relatives to one degree or another.

Saint,

Discovery Channel recently aired a show explaining how all modern males had a mutation on their Y chromosone that could be traced to one male in Africa who lived about 20,000 years ago. (Don't quote me on the time frame, could have been up to 40,000 years ago.)

This man is our "Scientific Adam."

Jaynee

[charity]

That would be The Gospel According to Darwin. Correct?

[rameumptom]

When I read the Book of Mormon, I see lineages that are rarely direct blood lines, and more often are cultural lines.

Sam disappears after 2 Nephi, because Lehi puts his family under Nephi's line. This gives me the belief that Sam was mentally impaired and required Nephi to take the lead, but I digress.

Josephites, Jacobites, and Zoramites are all placed under the Nephite name. Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites are culturally united under the name, Lamanite.

Later, the Mulekites are discovered and are culturally absorbed by the Nephites. While distinct lineages are still kept for centuries, they are all culturally Nephites.

All the Nephites that steal away to the Lamanites become Lamanites.

So, when the Book of Mormon calls the Nephites/Lamanites as the "primary" ancestors, I see it as the primary cultural ancestor. Whether in North, Central, South America or in the Polynesian Islands, they are all culturally adopted into the Lehite household and promises.

Such cultural adoption still occurs today in the Church, when we are adopted into the House of Israel. While few patriarchal blessings state that an individual is adopted (not politically correct?), it is quite clear that when it comes to DNA, very few of us have actual Israelite blood/DNA in us. This also explains why a family full of Ephraimites can have an individual in the tribe of Reuben (I know a family like this). It is more cultural than it has to do with any real blood lines.

I don't blame earlier leaders for their mistaken beliefs. Joseph Smith did not receive revelations on every little thing. Only on the things he pondered/asked about, and that God chose to answer. And that holds true for President Hinckley, also.

Why doesn't President Hinckley make any changes to it? I feel he probably has more important things to do than to adjust minor statements in our writings anytime that Rollo or someone else feels uncomfortable with it. We can hopefully figure out many things for ourselves without having to have the Church do all the work for us.

[jayneedoe]

That would be The Gospel According to Darwin.  Correct?

No. That would be the Gospel according to the National Geographic Channel.

(Sorry, I incorrectly identified it as the Discovery Channel.)

http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/channe...lorer_adam.html

Actually, a Mormon blogged on this link with a lengthy treatise of what "LDS" believe regarding evolution and how it fit in with the information provided in the show.

Jaynee

[Rollo Tomasi]

Rollo wrote: "I simply read McConkie's phrase to mean 'most prominent' or 'primary.'"

Rollo, maybe you interpreted wrong?

Certainly possible.

And then you replied to the sometimesaint that you feel the Brethren need to clarify.  Why?  What does that have to do with any doctrine of salvation?  If the Brethren were to take their time to do everything you think they ought to do they would get no useful work done at all.

I would like to see a clarification to take care of any confusion (as exemplified on this board with this issue). The Introduction put in the BofM in 1981 has nothing to do with salvation or doctrine, either, but still they found the time to draft it and include it.

[Rollo Tomasi]

When I read the Book of Mormon, I see lineages that are rarely direct blood lines, and more often are cultural lines.

And yet we have Mormon declaring himself "a pure descendant of Lehi" (3 Nephi 5:20) (emphasis mine) via Nephi (Mormon 1:5), reiterated by his son, Moroni (Mormon 8:13).

And yet we have Alma the Elder described as "a descendant of Nephi." (Mosiah 17:2).

And yet the Nephite kingdom could only be conferred only upon "those who were descendants of Nephi." (Mosiah 25:13).

Sam disappears after 2 Nephi, because Lehi puts his family under Nephi's line.

But he's not forgotten. Sam is mentioned as late as Alma 3:6.

This gives me the belief that Sam was mentally impaired and required Nephi to take the lead, but I digress.

I don't know about this, but Sam is described as a "holy m[a]n" in Alma 3:6.

Josephites, Jacobites, and Zoramites are all placed under the Nephite name. Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites are culturally united under the name, Lamanite.

Later, the Mulekites are discovered and are culturally absorbed by the Nephites. While distinct lineages are still kept for centuries, they are all culturally Nephites.

But ALL are described as Israelite.

So, when the Book of Mormon calls the Nephites/Lamanites as the "primary" ancestors, I see it as the primary cultural ancestor.

Who ALL happen to be Israelite. Where is that damn Semitic DNA?!

Whether in North, Central, South America or in the Polynesian Islands, they are all culturally adopted into the Lehite household and promises.

Even though the BofM fails to mention any non-Israelite other than the future Gentiles who will come to the promised land in the latter-days and bring the gospel to the Lamanite remnants.

It is more cultural than it has to do with any real blood lines.

Really? Then why did SWK in 1960 speak of Indian children becoming noticeably lighter-skinned than their parents, and spoke of white missionaries to the Indians donating their blood to expedite this process? This seems silly if the BofM is only speaking to "adoption."

Joseph Smith did not receive revelations on every little thing. Only on the things he pondered/asked about, and that God chose to answer.

Really? According to his mother, Joseph learned a lot of 'little things,' particularly about BofM peoples. Before Joseph even received the plates and began to translate the BofM, his mother recounts:

During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined.  He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship.  This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them.

Lucy Mack Smith, History of Joseph Smith, p. 83.

Seems like Joseph knew an awful lot about the BofM peoples, don't ya think?

I feel he probably has more  important things to do than to adjust minor statements in our writings anytime that Rollo or someone else feels uncomfortable with it.

Why not correct the Introduction if there is an error or confusion? I'm fine with it as written, by the way; I read it the way I believe the authors intended (a good example as to how Church leaders at the time the Introduction was first published viewed the blood lineage of Native Americans, is my McConkie quote in a prior post). It is the apologists who promote the LGT who find the word "principal" troublesome, because it doesn't jive very well with the LGT or recent DNA evidence.

[GDTeacher]

(Rollo Tomasi said:) Why not correct the Introduction if there is an error or confusion? I'm fine with it as written, by the way; I read it the way I believe the authors intended (a good example as to how Church leaders at the time the Introduction was first published viewed the blood lineage of Native Americans, is my McConkie quote in a prior post). It is the apologists who promote the LGT who find the word "principal" troublesome, because it doesn't jive very well with the LGT or recent DNA evidence.

I have read many quotes from apostles and prophets which seem to support the hemispheric theory. I have seen here in the past week or two an occassional reference to something that apostles or prophets may have said something that is supportive of the LGT theory. Can someone point me to something that the GA's have said that is directly supportive of the LGT?

Since this has not been one of my primary areas of research, I admit to ignorance, so no flogging please.

[thesometimesaint]

GDTeacher:

I know know of NO Revelation issued by the Church that says that either the LGT or Hemispheric model are correct. I tend to go with LGT but if God were to say differently. No problem for me.

[GDTeacher]

GDTeacher:

I know know of NO Revelation issued by the Church that says that either the LGT or Hemispheric model are correct. I tend to go with LGT but if God were to say differently. No problem for me.

I understand and agree with your statement. My question was more focused on comments by GA's which are often viewed by most members of the church to have some level of significance or authoritativeness to them.

As I mentioned, I have read many comments by apostles and prophets which seem to indicate that the hemispheric model is the correct model. I am just hoping that someone could point me to some comments by GA's that seem to indicate that the LGT is correct. I understand that there is nothing that is categorized as an approved revelation by the FP and Q of 12 stating that either the hemispheric model or the LGT is "correct."