Simon Southerton's response to ....

[Daniel Peterson]

as there are no qualified critics outside of Latter-Day Saintism, each of us is left with our own inexpert, biased assessment (you, me, everyone).  This is a difficult, but unavoidable starting point for new theories...and pseudosciences. 

And in that difficult process, those who have actually read the relevant materials and made at least an attempt to understand the relevant evidence and arguments prior to making their assessment will have a considerable advantage over those who have not.

[Guest Five to one]

If anybody believes that the Book of Mormon cannot possibly be more credible than claims of a flat earth -- if the option isn't open for him or her -- that person should frankly say so and not pretend to be giving purported evidence for either serious consideration. Simply say, "There is not and can never be any evidence that will persuade me to change my mind on this topic." I hadn't realized that such dogmatism was so openly espoused here. If I was wrong, please forgive my error.

We were talking about fringe opinions, and I gave an example (flat earth). I said nothing about the credibility of Book of Mormon claims. I'm always open to credible and convincing support for the Book of Mormon.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dan Vogel writes:

This might be true if the naivet

[cdowis]

Dan writes,

>A historical anachronism can be words like horse and steel, or claiming the deforestation of the Valley of Mexico occurred in the centuries BC rather than hundreds of years later, or Lehi believing in the Messiah and personal devil, or New Testament theology in Old Testament times, or reflecting the 19th century Mound Builder Myth and Hebrew origin of Native Americans.

Let's take an example. The BOM text mentions the name "Timothy" (in a time period after the Mulekites are discovered).

This particular item has been hailed as a historical anachronism.

But, by some odd coincidence, a DNA analysis shows that a woman from Greece and a full blooded Amerindian had a common ancestor. A few years ago National Geographic published an article where the common consensus of the experts was that the Maya were peaceful (another anachronism in the BOM) until discoveries showed otherwise.

Historical research, archeology are full of areas where the "common consensus" of the experts are displaced by new discoveries. And the anachronisms in the BOM are gradually falling away.

You should know this.

[Rollo Tomasi]

As I said, it makes very little difference to me one way or the other. But, even if the introduction was changed, this wouldn't seem to alter your expressed opinions on the text itself, so that would seem a rather hollow victory.

You are correct. Fixing the Introduction just takes care of the errors therein; I still have opinions on other issues related to BofM geography, etc., which I suspect we all do. But that's no reason not to change errors that we agree on, imo. Besides, correction of error is a victory for everyone, isn't it?

And, bottom line, all people belonging to the Nephite polity are described as "Nephite" even though their genes have nothing to do with Nephi.

But has everything to do with their being Israelite, which has been my point all along.

Assertion is not evidence.

The evidence is in the text, not my assertion. Can you cite one example in the BofM where a post-Jaredite person or group traces his/its lineage back to someone other than an Israelite? You can't, nor can Sorenson.

Well, if your reading is the only possible one that could even be "allowed" by the text, then what can I say?  No need to address those pesky arguments of those who read it differently.

Sorry, let me clarify -- this was my opinion. I view no counterarguments as "pesky," but an important part of discourse.

Despite your claim, many people HAVE read the text differently.

I agree with you.

They may be in error, but it seems strange to argue that the text cannot be seen in that way, when many people (with no apologetic intent) have seen things differently from you.

Again, I was expressing my opinion; I did not intend that my reading was the only one that could be asserted.

It is strange that you cannot at least grant that someone could reasonably see the matter differently, even if you do not find the evidence which persuades them ultimately compelling to adopt their view.

For those who believe in a form of LGT in Mesoamerica, I understand how they read the BofM text on this issue.

Actually, I have read that Lemba oral traditions have their ancestors leaving Jerusalem not long after Lehi.

Source?

Here is a source about the Lemba leaving Jerusalem approximately 2,500 years ago (but I don't recall whether this is where I first heard it):

http://www.haruth.com/JewishLemba.html

And yet, the Book of Mormon is decidedly not a history in the 19th century (or 21st century) western sense of the term.  How could Joseph misconstrue his masterwork so thoroughly?  Didn't he know what he had produced?

Agreed, but the BofM is not simply one thing -- yes, it is another testament of Jesus Christ, but it also is a form of history of ancient peoples in the Americas. I don't consider the two to be mutually exclusive.

It certainly is "an account," but not a history in the conventional sense.

It may not be like a traditional history textbook used in the classroom, but any "account" of a real and authentic ancient people (such as the BofM claims) certainly classifies as "history" in my 'book.' Any "message" or "testament" based on real events and real people, as the BofM does, is "history."

I trust President Packer's bona fides as someone other than a radical apologist and revisionist are intact.

He lets FARMS et al. take care of the "radical apologist" stuff.

But, the only person with descent mentioned is "of Zarahemla."  That's because he is the only lineage among "the people of Zarahemla" who matter to Nephite political/polemical purposes. (eg Mosiah 7:3, 13; Helaman 1:15)  But, his is hardly the only lineage there, we just don't get the specific breakdown a la the Lehite group of Lamanites, Lemuelites, Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Ishmaelites.

The entire Mulekite group is traced to Jersualem (i.e., Israelite). Any "specific breakdown" of a person or group in the BofM is traced to an Israelite immigrant, without exception, throughout the 1,000-year history of the BofM (excluding the Jaredites, of course). And I challenge you to show me any example in the BofM that contradicts this.

Trot out Sorenson, and show why you don't agree.  I can sit here and say "Others are there in the text" with as much cogency as you can say "No they weren't."  Tell me why you don't agree with Sorenson, or there's not much else to discuss.

"Trot out" any instance in the entire BofM that shows a non-Israelite lineage. I keep asking you to prove me wrong on this, but you keep ducking the issue.

And yet, strangely, when you ask what the official view is, one is told that no view is official, so no one "won out."

"Ask" all you want, but the written Introduction remains.

"Nothing in the Book of Mormon precludes migration into the Americas by peoples of Asiatic origin." - www.lds.org

So writes Noel Reynolds of FARMS, but (again) we are talking "principal," not "sole" or "exclusive."

The question is, are you the one to fix the error, if error it is?

No, but I can certainly raise and debate the issue here, as we have done; the Brethren can choose to do as they please.

So, did God call those men or not?

I believe so.

If so, do you have a duty to make your views known, or not?

I don't know how a "duty" is triggered; nevertheless, I have made my views known here, as have many others.

If you think it sufficiently troubling that you need to risk 'steadying the ark' to write them about it, do so.

As I've said before, this issue is not a 'dealbreaker' for me. It's not part of the canon; it is simply a mistake in a product written by man, and can be easily changed or clarified. The Brethren can decide to do that, or not (but I suspect they will in the not too distant future). Besides, they've made it clear to members that they don't want us to write them.

But, riding the hobby horse ad nauseum here won't alter anything, and will just get you worked up.  (I doubt the Twelve monitor this board.)

I'm not "worked up" at all -- you are the one who seems somewhat heated about this controversy. I, too, doubt the 12 monitor this bb, but I bet other Church employees do and something of this bb eventually gets back to some of the 12 (or other GA's).

It would seem, though, that this is just a symptom of a more fundamental problem--your doubts about Book of Mormon historicity, and the integrity of the Church and its processes of governance/decision making.

Actually, I do believe in BofM historiticty (but, I admit, I don't "know"). But I do not necessarily believe in FARMS or other apologist renditions of that historicity or their positions which blatantly contradict what prophets, seers and revelators taught for well over a century. For example, I think FARMS and other apologists are looking in the wrong place for their evidence (misassuming Mesoamerica as the starting point). I think the evidence we have heavily favors the BofM Cumorah located in western NY state, rather than in Mesoamerica. And I've seen nothing credible from the apologists to convince me this point of history should be revised. But this is all just my opinion. As to Church governance, I do think the Brethren are mistaken in letting FARMS et al. take the lead in this -- it only serves to paint the Church into a corner, imo. If mistakes in Church curriculum or other materials become evident, then fix them; I see no shame in the Church's admitting it has made a mistake, so there is no harm. I acknowledge the Brethren as the ultimate decision-makers on these types of issues, but I also don't see this as any reason to preclude members from saying what they think and debating these issues.

So, if you don't want to do that, I'll bow out with best wishes, since I don't have much else useful to contribute, other than to repeat myself more than I have already.

My best wishes to you as well.

[cdowis]

>The **entire** Mulekite group is traced to Jersualem (i.e., **Israelite**).

The two words marked above are based on your assumption and opinion, and not the BOM text itself.

For example, we have nothing on how the mulekites came to America -- it has been suggested that Greek merchants may have transported them here. That would explain the name Timothy, and the discovery of Greek ancestry of an Amerindian.

It is very important to recognize our assumptions regarding the BOM text.

[The Dude]

For example, we have nothing on how the mulekites came to America -- it has been suggested that Greek merchants may have transported them here. That would explain the name Timothy, and the discovery of Greek ancestry of an Amerindian.

It is very important to recognize our assumptions regarding the BOM text.

So you think some Mulekites "caught" the Greek DNA and it survived thousands of years of interbreeding among the Asiatic Native Americans? Let's see what John Butler thinks of that.

[charity]

The Dude, do you need a lesson on how DNA is transferred. Greek DNA in an Amerindian. If this person is a male: A hypothetical Greek sailor, and supposing there were any females in the Mulekite party, as why wouldn't there be, a starlight evening, oops. Greek DNA. It doesn't matter if he stayed or went back with the ship. I didn't think you would need that explained.

Or mtDNA, maybe a Greek female on the Greek ship, takes a shine to one of those cute Mulekites and stays with him after the ship off loads the passengers. Another way to transmit Greek DNA.

[Guest Five to one]

So, one starlit evening, and we get Greek DNA, but two migrations of Israelites and ... nothing?

[The Dude]

The Dude, do you need a lesson on how DNA is transferred. Greek DNA in an Amerindian.

[katherine the great]

The Dude, do you need a lesson on how DNA is transferred. Greek DNA in an Amerindian.

Somehow, I don't think the Dude needs a lesson in DNA transfer.

[Rollo Tomasi]

>The **entire** Mulekite group is traced to Jersualem (i.e., **Israelite**).

The two words marked above are based on your assumption and opinion, and not the BOM text itself.

Here's what we know of the Mulekites from the BofM text:

1. The Mulekites were guided by the Lord to the Americas (Helaman 6:10).

2. Mulek, son of Zedikiah (king of Judah), led the group out of Jerusalem (Omni 1:15; Helaman 8:21). Specifically, "it came to pass that Mosiah discovered that the people of Zarahemla came out from Jerusalem at the time Zedekiah, king of Judah, was carried away captive into Babylon." (Omni 1:15, emphasis mine).

3. The people of Zarahemla (Mulekites) joined forces with the Nephites (Omni 1:19; Mosiah 25).

This is from the text; are you arguing that the Mulekites were not Israelites?

[charity]

Five to One: Chance. DNA transfer is pretty much a matter of chance. Who gets some piece of DNA. Survival of that one individual to pass on that piece of DNA. The Dude didn't ask how likely. He just asked how it could happen.

[Guest Five to one]

Five to One: Chance. DNA transfer is pretty much a matter of chance. Who gets some piece of DNA. Survival of that one individual to pass on that piece of DNA. The Dude didn't ask how likely. He just asked how it could happen.

Fair enough, but what are the odds that an unnamed Greek sailor's DNA would survive thousands of years but not an entire group of Israelites?

[The Dude]

DNA transfer is pretty much a matter of chance.  Who gets some piece of DNA. Survival of that one individual to pass on that piece of DNA. The Dude didn't ask how likely.  He just asked how it could happen.

Charity: The more important part of my question to cdowis was: So you think some Mulekites "caught" the Greek DNA and it survived thousands of years of interbreeding among the Asiatic Native Americans?

I said "caught" in quotes, but it still threw you into a fit of pedantics.

[cdowis]

>are you arguing that the Mulekites were not Israelites?

Your logic is so flawed, I do not know where to begin.

Perhaps someone else is willing to take the time to explain it to you.

[Rollo Tomasi]

... I do not know where to begin.

Perhaps you should begin in Jerusalem (like the BofM does with the Mulekites).

[cdowis]

Ok, a group of people which included Jews left the city of Jerusalem.

Now what?

What brilliant leap of logic are you going to use to prove that every single man, woman and child who arrived in America with this group are Jews?

What leap of logic are you going to use to prove that every single man, woman and child who inhabited Zarahemla for several centuries were only Jews?

Please show me this was not a complete waste of time.

[charity]

The Dude, I would think this Greek DNA question would be more of a pessimist/optimist half-empty/half-full question.

That's why I can say, "Greek DNA in Amerindians? You mean there is now proof that they aren't all Asian? Wow!"

See, you can look at the whole question as a stab in the balloon of "There is only Asian DNA in the indigenous Amerindian population."

There will come a day when there will be other DNA strains shown. Some of them even maybe 600 B.C. "Israelite" DNA. If we knew what that was.

I can't expect you to be aware of a continuing thread in my posts (that would be egotistical on my part) but I have consisently argued that numbers and percentages of DNA don't matter one little bit in the question. It is others who have gotten hung up in the "predominant/majority of" silliness.

[cdowis]

>Greek dna

One small issue. According to the researchers, the link is 30k years ago.

[Rollo Tomasi]

What brilliant leap of logic are you going to use to prove that every single man, woman and child who arrived in America with this group are Jews?

Keep painting yourself into a corner.

I said nothing of "every single man, woman and child" in Zarahemla at the time of their discovery by the Nephites being "only Jews." Could the occasional non-Jew (like a lost Greek sailor, perhaps?) have hooked up with them during the hundreds of years between their leaving Jerusalem and being discovered in Zarahemla? Sure. But the BofM text describes these folks as descending from a specific Jew (Mulek) and a group that originated in Jerusalem, and is silent as to any other origin or lineage.

Now, let's see some others who have joined me in this "brilliant leap of logic." We'll begin with the current CES student manual used in the Religion 121 and 122 class:

Amaleki recorded information about a second colony of Jews who escaped to the promised land from Jerusalem and became known in the Book of Mormon as the people of Zarahemla. ...

[charity]

Rollo, why do you think that the very abridged account we have of the history of the Lehites, the Mulekites and the Jaredites contains every pickly little detail of every life? My goodness. When there are personal details, the people who kept the record were very focused on the "royal" line. They don't spend much time talking about anyone else.

The approach that you suggest in your previous post sounds very rigid!

[Rollo Tomasi]

Rollo, why do you think that the very abridged account we have of the history of the Lehites, the Mulekites and the Jaredites contains every pickly little detail of every life? My goodness. When there are personal details, the people who kept the record were very focused on the "royal" line.

I don't, but the details we do have in the text all point to Israelite ancestry. I'm not the one assuming personal details not set forth in the text (as others are doing). Oh, and btw, even the "bad guys" (i.e., Lamanites and their allies) who discuss their lineage also always point to an Israelite immigrant -- so much for "royal line," heh?

[charity]

Rollo, of course they do. Because the entire record is from that viewpoint. But there could many, many others with Greek, or Phoenician, or whatever lineages who didn't keep the records. Maybe this is why we are told to keep our histories. If you don't keep it, nobody else will for you. You think?

[cdowis]

Dearest Rollo,

I owe you an apology.

I quoted this from SOMEONE who used your name

>The **entire** Mulekite group is traced to Jersualem (i.e., **Israelite**).

In your last post you made it clear that you did not say this, but some phoney poster using your name. You would not make such an inane, silly remark as you made clear in the post above. We agree that the Mulekite group could include almost anyone, as well as Jews.

I shudda known better that SOMEONE else, impersonating you, made that remark.

Sorry.