Simon Southerton's response to ....

[Rollo Tomasi]

> For example, the word "principal" in the current BofM Introduction -- it's original meaning ought to be clarified in light of present-day DNA findings.

Let us look at its current meaning: "First, highest, or foremost in importance, rank, worth, or degree; chief."

Now compare that with the anti-Mormon meaning: (majority) "The greater number or part; a number more than half of the total."

Hence, the reason I referred to the original meaning of the word "principal" when the Introduction was first published in 1981. Revisionist history may reflect a different interpretation today, but that's precisely the type of clarification I am advocating. And exactly how can the original meaning of the word be deemed "anti-Mormon"?

[Rollo Tomasi]

Since I do not have this reference, could you perhaps start a new thread and summarize his arguments.

Using my above citation, you can get a copy of the article online here:

http://content.lib.utah.edu/cgi-bin/browse...OROOT=/dialogue

[Tarski]

I might be wrong but something inside me say that the Icelandic thing is irrelevant.

So, are the Icelanders "pure"? By that I mean, have there been no infusions of people from somewhere other than Scandinavia? If yes, then where is their DNA? It would appear to be just as lost as the DNA signiture of hundreds of thousands of founders.

C.I.

Is it missing? I don't think that any big civilizations are genetically unaccounted for in Iceland. Do you? On what basis?

BTW, my original point was a statistical one and I guess I won't be able to make the point more clear without reference to some actual technical stuff from probability and statistics.

[Bookworm]

Rollo,

You know, of course, that the inaccuracies in the article to which you refer were corrected in this article (FARMS Review 16/2 2004)

The Limited Geography of the Book of Mormon has been around for a long, long time, back to the 1840s.

[cdowis]

>Hence, the reason I referred to the original meaning of the word "principal" when the Introduction was first published in 1981.

Please demonstrate that the definition that I cited was not included in the definition prior to 1982. Please show us that somehow the definition has changed and has now included my citation ONLY since that time but was never part of that definition previously.

Thanks mucho.

[Rollo Tomasi]

You know, of course, that the inaccuracies in the article to which you refer were corrected in this article (FARMS Review 16/2 2004)

I was not aware, but thank you for the article; I will read it.

[cdowis]

Rollo,

Regarding the definition of "principal", I have started an entire thread for you to respond. I gave the 1913 Webster's dictionary definition.

This is an antimormon trick. They have poisoned your mind.

I look forward to your response.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Please demonstrate that the definition that I cited was not included in the definition prior to 1982. Please show us that somehow the definition has changed and has now included my citation ONLY since that time but was never part of that definition previously.

Many (including myself) believe BRM (an apostle and leading LDS theologian and scriptorian at the time) had an active role in drafting the BofM Introduction, first published in 1981. Thus, I have referenced what BRM wrote under the topic "American Indians" on pp. 32-33 of Mormon Doctrine, where he discusses the lineage of the native inhabitants found by Columbus and the Conquistadors. BRM describes these people as "chiefly" made up of "Lamanites," noting:

"Thus the Indians were Jews by nationality (D&C 57:4), their forefathers having come out from Jerusalem, from the kingdom of Judah."

BRM goes on to discuss the various mixing that may have occurred over time between the Lamanites and "isolated remnants of the Jaredites," the "orientals" who came via the Bering Strait, the Vikings by ship, and Europeans after Columbus, which diluted "pure Lamanitish blood." He concludes, however:

"But with it all, for the great majority of the descendants of the original inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere, the dominant blood lineage is that of Israel."

Imo, BRM's used the words "chiefly" (which sounds synonymous with "principal") and "predominant" to denote the Lamanites as the primary ancestor of American Indians. I think the DNA evidence clearly shows this to be false (of course, BRM did not have the benefit of DNA evidence at that time). I don't know of any source that suggests the word "principal" originally meant "more important" or other qualitative meaning.

[Daniel Peterson]

I notice that Simon Southerton's reply to John Butler appears to have been largely if not entirely forgotten. That's probably fortunate for him, as well as good all around.

[Greg Smith]

> Southerton: Bottom line is that 90% of all native people were wiped out. If the theoretical Lamanites were 20% of the New World population pre-1492, then the collapse would not necessarily have changed their proportion in the population.

This borders on the idiotic. It also doesn't necessarily follow that the proportions WOULDN'T have changed. And, there are a number of reasons to think that they WOULD have.

Is Southerton seriously arguing that genetic factors play NO role in variable disease resistance? That it doesn't matter what your genes are, that they'll all get "knocked down" to the same extent? That's a bit of a stretch. And, the alleles being searched for need not confer immunity directly; if they are linked to other traits via genetic or other selection means (e.g. sexual selection) they will still be affected.

====

Rollo Tomasi's quotation of Bruce R. McConkie on "dominant blood lineage" was also particularly disingenuous at the start of the thread, but I see he's now finally added some of the rest, though he seems to miss the implication. For context, McConkie wrote:

The American Indians, however, as Columbus found them also had other blood than that of Israel in their veins. It is possible that isolated remnants of the Jaredites may have lived through the period of destruction in which millions of their fellows perished. It is quite apparent that groups of orientals found their way over the Bering Strait and gradually moved southward to mix with the Indian peoples. We have records of a colony of Scandinavians attempting to set up a settlement in America some 500 years before Columbus. There are archeological indications that an unspecified number of groups of people probably found their way from the old to the new world in pre-Columbian times. Out of all these groups would have come the American Indians as they were discovered in the 15th century. [page 33]

So, it seems it's not heretical to believe in some Jaredite contribution in the 1960s, which had nothing to do with Lehi/Mulek.

What do Jaredite DNA markers look like Rollo? How would they impact the signals seen thus far?

What about the 'orientals'?

Elder McConkie seems quite comfortable with adding whatever is "quite apparent." Even (gasp!) orientals!

Question: can most people be descended from Lehi/Mulek without genetic markers? Why or why not? Show your work.

Or, we can reach into our Wayback Machine and see what was taught in general conference in the 1920s:

There must be a clear distinction, it grows every year more evident, between the origins of America's ancient people and the sources of their culture. The human material of the pre- Columbian societies probably came from Asia by way of Alaska, the orthodox route long accepted for the American Indians

[why me]

After now reading through this complete thread I have come to realize that I should never depend on science to strenghten or lessen my belief in the lds church. Science is unpredictable and filled with the ideas of men and women. But the scriptures are from god and must be prayed and pondered upon.

What is sad is the members who have been lost from the lds records because they have believed his (ISmon's) words. The Exmos and the postmos were doing handstands over simon....following his every word as gospel. But now there seems to be holes in his ideas.

Sad that some good members fell away because of him. Hopefully we all can learn from this lesson...pray and ponder the scriptures for answers and not depend on the words of men and women who are naturally imperfect in knowledge just because they are human.

[Mark Beesley]

After now reading through this complete thread I have come to realize that I should never depend on science to strenghten or lessen my belief in the lds church. Science is unpredictable and filled with the ideas of men and women. But the scriptures are from god and must be prayed and pondered upon.

What is sad is the members who have been lost from the lds records because they have believed his (ISmon's) words. The Exmos and the postmos were doing handstands over simon....following his every word as gospel. But now there seems to be holes in his ideas.

Sad that some good members fell away because of him. Hopefully we all can learn from this lesson...pray and ponder the scriptures for answers and not depend on the words of men and women who are naturally imperfect in knowledge just because they are human.

Methinks thou givest Mssr. Southerton too much credit. Anyone who fell away from the Chuch because of DNA debats already had at least one foot out the door. They use DNA as a crutch. But the stark reality is that many, many, many of those who fall away, while protesting wildly to the contrary, do so because of sin and pride. Those who were vulnerable because of a weak or non-existent testimony were vulnerable because of pride and slothfulness.

[Kevin Graham]

== But the stark reality is that many, many, many of those who fall away, while protesting wildly to the contrary, do so because of sin and pride. Those who were vulnerable because of a weak or non-existent testimony were vulnerable because of pride and slothfulness.

Comments like these say far more about an LDS need to make sense of the fact that people really do leave for legitimate reasons, than it says about the large group of people it intends to ridicule.

Excuse me while I throw up.

[Nighthawke]

Methinks thou givest Mssr. Southerton too much credit. Anyone who fell away from the Chuch because of DNA debats already had at least one foot out the door. They use DNA as a crutch. But the stark reality is that many, many, many of those who fall away, while protesting wildly to the contrary, do so because of sin and pride. Those who were vulnerable because of a weak or non-existent testimony were vulnerable because of pride and slothfulness.

Well Kevin phrased it a bit harshly but I kind of agree with him. People do leave the Church for legitimate reasons and that's fine. They also oftentimes return. Whether they do or not I wish them well. Life is hard.

I see nothing wrong with reassessing one's membership in the Church I've done it several times. I'm still a member after thirty years but only because of the the fact that I have received an undeniable testimony of the Church. If it wasn't for that who knows where I would've ended up. But some folks don't have that testimony, and so my heart goes out to them, I cannot begin to imagine what life must be like to live that way, without confirmation. Which is why, I suppose, many LDS (not all) but the majority who leave the Church do not join any other Church. Why should they? They do not have that confirmation that God lives.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Rollo Tomasi's quotation of Bruce R. McConkie on "dominant blood lineage" was also particularly disingenuous at the start of the thread, but I see he's now finally added some of the rest, though he seems to miss the implication. For context, McConkie wrote:

The American Indians, however, as Columbus found them also had other blood than that of Israel in their veins. It is possible that isolated remnants of the Jaredites may have lived through the period of destruction in which millions of their fellows perished. It is quite apparent that groups of orientals found their way over the Bering Strait and gradually moved southward to mix with the Indian peoples. We have records of a colony of Scandinavians attempting to set up a settlement in America some 500 years before Columbus. There are archeological indications that an unspecified number of groups of people probably found their way from the old to the new world in pre-Columbian times. Out of all these groups would have come the American Indians as they were discovered in the 15th century. [page 33]

The "implication"? How about BRM's conclusion, starting with the "but with it all" (referring to his prior examples of possible dilution of "pure Lamanitish blood") clause, that for "the great majority" of Native Americans "the dominant blood lineage is that of Israel." Juxtapose this statement with DNA findings today, where nary a trace of Semitic DNA can be found among Native Americans.

This DNA thing is really just one of the more embarassing anti-Mormon efforts.

This is perhaps the most absurd statement I have ever heard on this topic. DNA stands in stark contrast to traditional teachings and beliefs of the LDS Church (some of which continue in current curriculum and BofM Introduction), regardless of your attempts at revisionist history.

[Nighthawke]

The "implication"?  How about BRM's conclusion...

And that's exactly all it was, the "gospel according to" Bruce R. McConkie. Is no one familiar with that expression? Greg posted:

We've got:

* small numerical (Elder Young)

* dominant blood lineage (Elder McConkie)

* all Lehi/Mulek (I think Mark E. Peterson held this view)

And this is exactly how I was taught in my neck of the woods in the 1970s (minus the names in brackets) and then it was simply left to us to decide for ourselves how we wanted to approach it. For myself, seeing as I was familiar with First Nations mythology, chose the small numerical or even the none at all due to death and destruction which is still acceptable when you take into consideration the different definitions of just "Who Were the Lamanites?".

It isn't revisionist history. Anyone who has read Joseph Smith knows that he was perfectly open, willing and excited to consider new knowledge on the topic.

[Kevin Graham]

== Anyone who has read Joseph Smith knows that he was perfectly open, willing and excited to consider new knowledge on the topic.

I'm willing to accept this thesis if it can be supported, and naturally most LDS, including myself, would like to assume this to be true. But what evidence is there that Smith entertained different theories on the Lamanite/Jewish connection? Not to be picky, but assertion without evidence comes across as wishful thinking.

[Rollo Tomasi]

The "implication"?

[Nighthawke]

== Anyone who has read Joseph Smith knows that he was perfectly open, willing and excited to consider new knowledge on the topic.

I'm willing to accept this thesis if it can be supported, and naturally most LDS, including myself, would like to assume this to be true. But what evidence is there that Smith entertained different theories on the Lamanite/Jewish connection? Not to be picky, but assertion without evidence comes across as wishful thinking.

Both myself, Dan Peterson and others here have posted quotes by Joseph Smith to that effect. I'm not going to go search for them again. I came across it one day, I thought, 'Hmm, that's interesting,' and moved on. The DNA thing is absolutely a non-issue for me so I have no interest in starting a file folder for it.

My real interest is plural marriage.

[Nighthawke]

It isn't revisionist history. Anyone who has read Joseph Smith knows that he was perfectly open, willing and excited to consider new knowledge on the topic.

It is revisionist history to the extent no one wants to admit a mistake was made. And if the Church is truly "open, willing and excited," then it will acknowledge past mistakes in beliefs and teachings and correct them accordingly.

A mistake was made where? In someone's Sunday School class? By a Seventy? In a book published by Bookcraft? Everyone knew back then that Bookcraft did not in any way, shape, or form equal official church doctrine.

Fifty years from now, heaven forbid if Gerald Lund is ever called as an Apostle, will critics be posting from "The Work and The Glory" and claiming it is doctrinal, I mean, "Look the guy was called as a leader in the Church after he wrote those books... yada yada yada."

I'm sorry some people have misinterpreted something. Hello??? It happens all the time. Maybe we should start a thread about kooky stuff I was taught in Sunday School--the real kooky thing though is that those attending Sunday School or listening to a talk or reading a book take it as gospel without looking further into it when Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and so on have all told us to do just that--not take it at face value but to study it out, pray about it and so forth.

And in the end, even if someone takes to heart a false teaching, did that false teaching lead them away from Christ? Does a Latter-day Saint who believes that Lamanites were the principal ancestors of First Nations people face eternal damnation? No, absolutely not. However, should the Church be true (and I believe it is) it will make for awfully funny interviews

[Rollo Tomasi]

A mistake was made where? In someone's Sunday School class? By a Seventy? In a book published by Bookcraft? Everyone knew back then that Bookcraft did not in any way, shape, or form equal official church doctrine.

I was referring to the BofM Introduction and CES curriculum, in particular.

[Nighthawke]

A mistake was made where? In someone's Sunday School class? By a Seventy? In a book published by Bookcraft? Everyone knew back then that Bookcraft did not in any way, shape, or form equal official church doctrine.

I was referring to the BofM Introduction and CES curriculum, in particular.

The only time I've ever read the Introduction to the Book of Mormon was when I received my first copy of the Book of Mormon, in French, when I started investigating the Church. A have a more recent copy, published in 1982, that does not have the English version's introduction re: the Lamanites. Is it only the English version of the Book of Mormon that has this intro?

Not all LDS take CES, I never did. I have taught CES but I do not recall anything about Lamanites as principal ancestors and I doubt the sleepy heads in CES would either.

edit here: I just wanted to add that even if I had read the Intro in English I still would not have taken it at face value that the Lamanites were the principal ancestors. I've never thought that they were.

[Kevin Graham]

== Both myself, Dan Peterson and others here have posted quotes by Joseph Smith to that effect. I'm not going to go search for them again.

Well, if you come across them, I'd be glad to take a look.

== This DNA thing is really just one of the more embarassing anti-Mormon efforts.

I'm not sure how. D. Jeffrey Meldrum, the LDS biologist who is involved in the LDS apologetic, acknowledges that "the assumption or interpretation that all modern Native Americans are direct lineal descendants of the dominant Book of Mormon peoples may be set aside by modern molecular evidence." Yet this seems to be the position of many, including Dan Peterson. Meldrum then goes on to refute the claim that this proves the BoM to be ahistorical. These are two different arguments of course, but the former seems to be of more interest to our critics, and even Meldrum seems to concede that it is a criticism with basis.

So I fail to see how it is embarrassing to them. Unless of course you have in mind the numerous trivial complaints against their "method" and "credibility." Certainly they were trigger happy, but this is like any group who finds new information to support their agenda. We do it all the time , too.

It was Dan Peterson who told everyone to "cool it" when LDS apologists found out that a Catholic Priest was baptized LDS. Those were words of wisdom, and I suspect there are some of our critics who do not make the dogmatic assertions that we find by the likes of Luke Wilson. They'd say the same thing to those jumping to conclusions based on one proved argument. But illicitly leaping to a secondary conclusion by some, doesn't negate the initial argument as valid.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Is it only the English version of the Book of Mormon that has this intro?

I'm not sure, because I only have English versions; I do know the same Introduction has been included in every English edition since 1981, including the recent commercial publication by Doubleday.

Not all LDS take CES, I never did.

Many thousands of LDS students do each year, however.

[Nighthawke]

Not all LDS take CES, I never did.

Many thousands of LDS students do each year, however.

Absolutely and those LDS students can make up their own minds about what to believe or not believe when they read the Introduction.

In the end, whether someone walks away believing the Lamanites to be descendants, or not, of First Nations people shouldn't be faith making or breaking. First Nations ancestry is not the message of the Book of Mormon, the Book of Mormon is about the gospel of Jesus Christ. If someone's testimony rides on the Lamanites' ancestry found in the Intro to the Book of Mormon instead of on Jesus Christ found within the pages of the Book of Mormon and they fall away I say, "Amen. Come back when you're born again."