Simon Southerton's response to ....

[Nisfor]

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.

After reading through multiple threads on this board I have come to realize that I should never depend on the LDS church to strengthen or lessen my belief in *anything*. It's "doctrine" is unpredictable and filled with the ideas of men and women. But what I feel in my heart and in my mind is from god and must be prayed and pondered upon.

What is sad is the members that have chosen to keep their names on the LDS records because they would lose their families or friends, or they have believed his (Smith's, or Young's or Hinckley's or their Bishop's) words about "what God really wants", "what God is like", etc. over what they themselves feel in their own hearts or minds. The mo's always do handstands over (Smith/Young/Hinckley/Bishop/etc.)... following his every word as gospel. But now there seems to be holes in his ideas.

Sad to say that some good people feel they have to disregard their own feelings or beliefs because of him. Hopefully we all can learn from this lesson... pray and ponder what you actually believe in your own heart and in your own mind and not depend on the words of men and women who are naturally imperfect in knowledge just because they are human, even if they call themselves by fancy titles like "Prophet", "Bishop", "Elder", or whether they like to call their ideas and opinions fancy things like "Scriptures", "Doctrines" or "Gods Word".

[Rollo Tomasi]

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."

I agree that this is not a "make or break" issue, or at least it shouldn't be. It just means that leaders and members of the Church likely made some mistakes in the past that are now subject to correction based on greater light and knowledge. But that doesn't mean we don't correct these mistakes because we fear how such a correction might be viewed. That only serves to paint the Church in a corner, imo.

[charity]

Since when are fallible scientists "greater light and knowledge?" I believe that Native Americans are the children of the promise given in the Book of Mormon. There is nothing in DNA studies that makes that impossible.

This idea that the "Church has painted itself into a corner" is another example of yapping dogs. They never stopped a bus, yet.

[Nighthawke]

It just means that leaders and members of the Church likely made some mistakes in the past that are now subject to correction based on greater light and knowledge.  But that doesn't mean we don't correct these mistakes because we fear how such a correction might be viewed.  That only serves to paint the Church in a corner, imo.

To which I respond, "What's the hurry?" I have no doubt the Intro will be removed/corrected someday. Or perhaps a better explanation of who are the Lamanites stuck in there. But not because of today's anti-Mormon hot issue du jour but more likely when Royal Skousen has finished his work on the Book of Mormon. Now his stuff is a heck of a lot more exciting than Lamanite ancestry.

In the meantime, the Church has a lay ministry which basically means it's up to us Latter-day Saints to speak up if needs be in our classes, in our homes and so on.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Since when are fallible scientists "greater light and knowledge?" I believe that Native Americans are the children of the promise given in the Book of Mormon. There is nothing in DNA studies that makes that impossible.

This idea that the "Church has painted itself into a corner" is another example of yapping dogs. They never stopped a bus, yet.

What does any of this have to do with "fallibility"? Is God precluded from sharing greater light and knowledge through scientists or anyone else? Talk about "yapping dogs" ....

[Kevin Graham]

== Since when are fallible scientists "greater light and knowledge?"

Since when are fallible Church leaders "greater light and knowledge?" That scientists err is not in dispute. That Church leaders err is also a no-brainer. I don't think it is an unreasonable request that the Church leaders make an effort to change its view given what appears to be silly (generalizing about, not just some, but every single indian in the western hemisphere). I mean it isn't as if it hasn't done this before.

== I believe that Native Americans are the children of the promise given in the Book of Mormon. There is nothing in DNA studies that makes that impossible.

Highly improbable, but not impossible. You see, it wouldn't be so bad if LDS leaders and prominent scholars and the majority view maintained that all American Indians are of the "House of Israel."

Setting DNA aside, what makes them the House of Israel? Nothing. They are not Jewish in blood and they are not Jewish in practice. In the Bible nobody would be considered the House of Israel without falling into one of the two categories. American Indians fall into neither.

== This idea that the "Church has painted itself into a corner" is another example of yapping dogs. They never stopped a bus, yet.

Well, I'm a faithful member of the Church, and I'm paying attention, mainly because at least one LDS scientist has conceded the point that the yapping dogs got something right.

[Rollo Tomasi]

I have no doubt the Intro will be removed/corrected someday. Or perhaps a better explanation of who are the Lamanites stuck in there. But not because of today's anti-Mormon hot issue du jour but more likely when Royal Skousen has finished his work on the Book of Mormon. Now his stuff is a heck of a lot more exciting than Lamanite ancestry.

For whatever reason the Church ultimately decides to correct the mistake or offer a clarification, such action would be a good thing, imo.

[Kevin Graham]

It won't. To do so only adds legitimacy to the criticisms. We'd have to endure another 1978 period, when the Church, eh, I mean God, flip-flopped on the priesthood issue.

Of course this had nothing to do with the civil rights movement.

[USU78]

It won't. To do so only adds legitimacy to the criticisms. We'd have to endure another 1978 period, when the Church, eh, I mean God, flip-flopped on the priesthood issue.

Of course this had nothing to do with the civil rights movement.

Have we lost you, KG?

[Nighthawke]

It won't.

Lemme guess... you're under 30 aren't you? Young'uns is so impatient. What's the rush?

[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.

After reading through multiple threads on this board I have come to realize that I should never depend on the LDS church to strengthen or lessen my belief in *anything*. It's "doctrine" is unpredictable and filled with the ideas of men and women. But what I feel in my heart and in my mind is from god and must be prayed and pondered upon.

What is sad is the members that have chosen to keep their names on the LDS records because they would lose their families or friends, or they have believed his (Smith's, or Young's or Hinckley's or their Bishop's) words about "what God really wants", "what God is like", etc. over what they themselves feel in their own hearts or minds. The mo's always do handstands over (Smith/Young/Hinckley/Bishop/etc.)... following his every word as gospel. But now there seems to be holes in his ideas.

Sad to say that some good people feel they have to disregard their own feelings or beliefs because of him. Hopefully we all can learn from this lesson... pray and ponder what you actually believe in your own heart and in your own mind and not depend on the words of men and women who are naturally imperfect in knowledge just because they are human, even if they call themselves by fancy titles like "Prophet", "Bishop", "Elder", or whether they like to call their ideas and opinions fancy things like "Scriptures", "Doctrines" or "Gods Word".

It is sad when friends or family members split for many reasons. There should be no excuse for it outside of incest or any form of other abuse.

You forgot to mention the family members who disown their own members for joining the lds church. I am afraid that this can be a two way street. But yes, those members who shun family members who leave the church are wrong but then, who is perfect. Certainly the church does not encourage such behavior.

I have learned not to put my faith in man or woman nor do I put my faith in the knowledge of men and women.

Simon is just a man on his own mission...all those who put their faith in simon have made a gross mistake in my opinion. And many have if only to 'confirm' their own skepticism.

[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.

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.

Perhaps you are right. But many also live with a shakey testimony and simon only gives the added push. Still, it is sad to put a religious belief in the hands of a mere mortal man who claims not to speak for god but rather seems to speak from the knowledge of the learned.

There are warnings in the bible about this.

[Kevin Graham]

== Lemme guess... you're under 30 aren't you?

No.

== Have we lost you, KG?

Nah, I just find it hard to pry myself out of devils advocate mode. I learn so much from it.

[charity]

I am of the tribe of Ephraim, of the house Israel, with all the promises given to Abraham. I have never had DNA testing, but I doubt I have "Jewish blood." I certainly don't have any identifiable "Jewish practices." Does that mean I am not a child of the covenant?

Or maybe you don't believe in the covenant of Abraham, either.

[Kevin Graham]

You're adopted into the House of Israel Charity, and you do so via religious means. By what standard are all Native Americans members of the House of Israel?

[charity]

My patriarchal blessing does not say "adopted." When I get my pedigree chart completely filled out, I will find the names of Ephraim, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham. Not an adoption certificate. Abraham was promised his descendants would be numberless. I am one of them. And so are the Native Americans, who will find on their pedigree charts the name of Laman or Lemuel or Nephi, Sam, Joseph, or their sisters, and Lehi. That shouldn't be hard to understand, Kevin.

You guys really should take learn a little bit about how genealogy works.

[Nighthawke]

My patriarchal blessing does not say "adopted." When I get my pedigree chart completely filled out, I will find the names of Ephraim, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham. Not an adoption certificate. Abraham was promised his descendants would be numberless. I am one of them. And so are the Native Americans, who will find on their pedigree charts the name of Laman or Lemuel or Nephi, Sam, Joseph, or their sisters, and Lehi. That shouldn't be hard to understand, Kevin.

You guys really should take learn a little bit about how genealogy works.

Charity, are you perhaps thinking of the Covenant of Abraham?

[charity]

Of course. ????

Native Americans have that promise as well as what is promised in the Book of Mormon, that they will have the fulness of the Gospel because they are the children of Lehi.

[Bsix]

What percentage of the native population was wiped out after the Spaniards came to due to disease and conflict?

Six: I recemtly watched a PBS show on the impact that the Spanish migration to the America's had. This show estimated that killings and disease wipe out nearly 90% of the native population in a very short time.

Regards,

Six

[Greg Smith]

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.

One of the "conclusions" was that Jaredites played a role in resulting Amerinidian populations. Jaredites are Book of Mormon peoples.

So, (according to McConkie) Jaredites merged with Lamanites.

I ask again:

- where were Jaredites from?

- what do their allele frequencies look like?

- how does this impact our interpretation of genetic data?

Kind regards,

Greg Smith

[Pahoran]

It won't. To do so only adds legitimacy to the criticisms. We'd have to endure another 1978 period, when the Church, eh, I mean God, flip-flopped on the priesthood issue.

You mean when the change that everyone was expecting came, only sooner than most expected it?

As everyone with a clue knows, there was no "flip-flop."

Of course this had nothing to do with the civil rights movement.

You got that right.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

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.

Indeed. Especially since it is painfully obvious that Saint Simon was merely going through the motions of responding to Butler; in reality, he was talking right past him, and simply failed to engage his argument at all.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Rollo Tomasi]

One of the "conclusions" was that Jaredites played a role in resulting Amerinidian populations. Jaredites are Book of Mormon peoples.

So, (according to McConkie) Jaredites merged with Lamanites.

Actually, BRM offered "isolated remnants of the Jaredites," among other groups, as a possibility for dilution of "pure Lamanitish blood," not a conclusion. His conclusion related to the "predominant blood lineage" of American Indians, and was offered by me to give insight as to what was likely meant by the word "principal" when the BofM Introduction was first published in 1981.

[Kevin Graham]

== You guys really should take learn a little bit about how genealogy works.

It isn

[Rollo Tomasi]

The LDS scientists emphasize how small Lehi