Can We Establish This Much?

[TheWhiteLamaniteZelph]

Hi Everyone,

I've read many LDS people speculate that the Native Americans are likely to be descendants from Asian people. However, I'm actually interested in finding out if we have some type of consensus on this topic. I'm not stating the BOM is false, just asking if everyone has concluded that there must have been inhabitants in "The Promised Land" before Lehi arrived in 600 BC.

Based on the following information, what can be determined on this topic?

"Some scholars estimate that the Western Hemisphere at the time of the first European contact was inhabited by 40 million people who spoke 1,800 different tongues. Another widely accepted estimate suggests that at the time of Columbus more than 15 million speakers throughout the Western Hemisphere used more than 2,000 languages; the geographic divisions within that estimate are 300 separate tongues native to some 1.5 million Native Americans N[orth] of Mexico, 300 different languages spoken by roughly 5 million people in Mexico and Central America, and more than 1,400 distinct tongues used by 9 million Native Americans in South America and the West Indies." http://www.bartleby.com/65/na/NatvAmlang.html

"Although both North and Central America are very diverse areas, South America has a linguistic diversity rivaled by only a few other places in the world with approximately 350 languages still spoken and an estimated 1,500 languages at first European contact.

There are approximately 296 spoken (or formerly spoken) indigenous languages north of Mexico, 269 of which are grouped into 29 families

North America is notable for its linguistic diversity, especially in California state where it alone has 18 genetic units consisting of 74 languages (compare to the mere 3 genetic units in all of Europe:

Archaeological and DNA evidence suggests that the Americas were peopled by migrants from Siberia about 17,000-10,000 years ago. A persistent minority opinion believes instead that humans first spread through the Americas about 30,000 years ago..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_Languages

Assuming the above statements are true:

1. All the indigenous people in North and South America are direct descendants of Lehi and his company. All of these languages and cultures originated from a tiny group of settlers from Israel and this evolution took place in approximately 2000 years, from 600 BC to 1492 AD.

or

2. There must have been others living in North and South America before Lehi arrived.

This question is not intended to disprove the BOM; it's just an attempt to establish where the Lamanites came from.

[mnn727]

There must have been others living in North and South America before Lehi arrived.

Pretty obvious to me, and does not disprove the BoM at all.

[erichard]

...

Assuming the above statements are true:

1. All the indigenous people in North and South America are direct descendants of Lehi and his company. All of these languages and cultures originated from a tiny group of settlers from Israel and this evolution took place in approximately 2000 years, from 600 BC to 1492 AD.

or

2. There must have been others living in North and South America before Lehi arrived.

This question is not intended to disprove the BOM; it's just an attempt to establish where the Lamanites came from.

The answer must be 2. I am a diffusionist anyway, and like Barry Fell books.

For one thing, the Jaredites were here before Lehi and his group came.

I personally believe the true descendents of Lehi reside mainly in South America today. Some must be in Central and even North America, but they mixed with other groups who came before them.

Richard

[urroner]

An interesting article to read about the diffusionist theory, it's a three part article:

The Diffusionists Have Landed

The Case of Barry Fell

Whose Race Is It Anyway?

IT is arguably the biggest discovery never to have elicited any reaction whatsoever. In November of 1994 a small monthly newspaper called Y Drych (The Mirror), which serves as an expatriate journal for North America's Welsh diaspora, published the following curious item among a batch of breezy tidbits:

According to [Alan] Wilson and [baram] Blackett ... the court of Camelot is more likely to be found in Kentucky! They claim that [King] Arthur was killed in North America by Indians after emigrating there ca. 579 A.D.

With telegraphic brevity the Y Drych contributor, Don John, ran through the few salient points: There were two Arthurs, who lived centuries apart. "It was King Arthur II who died in America. He was embalmed and taken back to Wales to be buried at Mynydd-y-Gaer, near Bridgend." Oddly, John failed to mention the discovery a few years earlier, by a man antiquing in Pennsylvania, of a two-edged sword of the Norse spatha type. That finding had recently been discussed in the pages of another obscure journal, The Ancient American, which quoted the same Alan Wilson. The sword was inscribed with seven letters of a script that Wilson identified as Coelbren y Beirdd, presumed to have been used by ancient Welsh divines in casting lots (coelbren = "lots, sortilege"; y beirdd = "of the bards"). Wilson proposed a rough translation ("The Lord ruler well beloved, the duty of the army mutually together to you") and posited a connection between this sword and Arthurian immigrants in North America circa A.D. 570.

[Avatar4321]

Two Major problems with trying to use DNA to disprove the Book of Mormon.

1)No one knows what Lehi/Ishmael's DNA looks like. So how the heck can you say the DNA isnt there when you dont know what its supposed to look like?

2)Laman, Lemuel, and their group were cursed by God. The curse changed their appearence. How the heck are we supposed to know what kind of effect this has on DNA?

Those who seem to think DNA disproves the Book of Mormon conveniently try to ignore these to facts simply to focus on a shallow analysis and generalities.

[semlogo]

There is no question that there were people living in the Americas before BOM times, and that they were of generally Asian decent. Whether there were any Hebrews (descendants of Joseph) in there at all remains to to be seen, from a scientific perspective. We have faith that there were, but we don't know scientifically.

[TheWhiteLamaniteZelph]

Two Major problems with trying to use DNA to disprove the Book of Mormon.

1)No one knows what Lehi/Ishmael's DNA looks like. So how the heck can you say the DNA isnt there when you dont know what its supposed to look like?

2)Laman, Lemuel, and their group were cursed by God. The curse changed their appearence. How the heck are we supposed to know what kind of effect this has on DNA?

Those who seem to think DNA disproves the Book of Mormon conveniently try to ignore these to facts simply to focus on a shallow analysis and generalities.

You must not have fully read my question. I actually didn't mention DNA much...I focused on languages and population.

[wenglund]

While it may be of some interest to fuss and fret about the origins of the American Indian, I am wondering what value might be derived therefrom in terms of helping us all to become better people and to increase in joy and love towards each other?

I mean, does it really matter whether we ever definitively nail down where all the "lamanites" came from when one need but open one's eyes to see the harrowing levels of poverty, depression, and alcoholism amonst that people? Might not our thoughts and energies be better employed in seeking viable solutions to the trivails of the American Indian rather than theorizing seemingly endlessly about their ancient origins?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[TheWhiteLamaniteZelph]

While it may be of some interest to fuss and fret about the origins of the American Indian, I am wondering what value might be derived therefrom in terms of helping us all to become better people and to increase in joy and love towards each other?

I mean, does it really matter whether we ever definitively nail down where all the "lamanites" came from when one need but open one's eyes to see the harrowing levels of poverty, depression, and alcoholism amonst that people? Might not our thoughts and energies be better employed in seeking viable solutions to the trivails of the American Indian rather than theorizing seemingly endlessly about their ancient origins?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

In case you are unaware, the "Lamanintes" are very interesting to most concerned with Mormon apologetic discussion. It seems that you are concerned about the details of the LDS religion, or you wouldn't be at this site -- so why dance around this question? I think there are many reasons this question is important; but mainly, I seek truth for the Native American people who deserve to know it. I also would like to establish a consensus on this issue so that we can discuss the BOM deeper.

[ttribe]

In case you are unaware, the "Lamanintes" are very interesting to most concerned with Mormon apologetic discussion. It seems that you are concerned about the details of the LDS religion, or you wouldn't be at this site -- so why dance around this question? I think there are many reasons this question is important; but mainly, I seek truth for the Native American people who deserve to know it. I also would like to establish a consensus on this issue so that we can discuss the BOM deeper.

Note to new guy - Wade's plenty "aware" of the "interest" in the topic. In fact, my guess is he can run circles around you on the issue. However, he's long since moved passed it and is trying to refocus people on what matters (which is essentially what he stated in his post).

[TheWhiteLamaniteZelph]

Note to new guy - Wade's plenty "aware" of the "interest" in the topic. In fact, my guess is he can run circles around you on the issue. However, he's long since moved passed it and is trying to refocus people on what matters (which is essentially what he stated in his post).

He's welcome to try and "run circles around me," and you may as well. However, I'm not here to argue this point, only to gain a consensus on the matter. Also, I'm very familiar with the treatment a new member receives on this discussion board, so you can use remarks like "note to new guy," but by using these types of tactics, you are also avoiding a question that is very problematic to your entire religion. So, before you become so smug on this issue, remember the LDS church has not resolved this problem, only changed doctrine to better deal with the unfavorable sciences that continue to develop.

Just because I haven't participated in this message board, doesn't change the fact that the greatest minds in archeology, science, anthropology, and religion are can provide more than enough evidence against the history of the BOM and claims of previous "prophets."

[ttribe]

He's welcome to try and "run circles around me," and you may as well. However, I'm not here to argue this point, only to gain a consensus on the matter. Also, I'm very familiar with the treatment a new member receives on this discussion board, so you can use remarks like "note to new guy," but by using these types of tactics, you are also avoiding a question that is very problematic to your entire religion. So, before you become so smug on this issue, remember the LDS church has not resolved this problem, only changed doctrine to better deal with the unfavorable sciences that continue to develop.

Just because I haven't participated in this message board, doesn't change the fact that the greatest minds in archeology, science, anthropology, and religion are can provide more than enough evidence against the history of the BOM and claims of previous "prophets."

My, my...the guns are blazing now, aren't they?

I suggest you start here: Topic Link

[wenglund]

In case you are unaware, the "Lamanintes" are very interesting to most concerned with Mormon apologetic discussion.

While that may or may not be true, I am merely wondering if such an interest is well placed and/or productive?

It seems that you are concerned about the details of the LDS religion, or you wouldn't be at this site

My intent in participating here is to underscore and promote the actual purpose of the restored gospel of Christ (i.e. to enable us to become the very best people possible and to gain a fulness of joy and love--hence, my questions) and to minimize the distractions (like fussing fruitlessly about ancient linguistic, cultural, or genetic origins of the American Indian) that may draw our attention away and limit us from achieving those worthy goals.

-- so why dance around this question?

Because I believe we will get nowhere of lasting value, if at all, by "dancing with it"?

I think there are many reasons this question is important; but mainly, I seek truth for the Native American people who deserve to know it.

Yes...I see your point. Having some presumptuous white people give their version of the "truth" about Indian origins is way more important and deserving to Native Americans than their children getting a quality education or they as a people rising out of poverty, sickness, and isolation and attaining a higher quality of life.

I also would like to establish a consensus on this issue so that we can discuss the BOM deeper.

Good luck with that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jason]

I think very few LDS believe that all Native Americans are descended from Lehi and his family.

You quote two figures of possible population before Columbus arrived: 15 million and 40 million. Doesn't the disparity between these two estimates illustrate how little we really know about conditions in the Americas before Europeans arrived? I think any argument about where the native americans came from should keep this fact in mind.

[russianwolfe]

Hi Everyone,

I've read many LDS people speculate that the Native Americans are likely to be descendants from Asian people. However, I'm actually interested in finding out if we have some type of consensus on this topic. I'm not stating the BOM is false, just asking if everyone has concluded that there must have been inhabitants in "The Promised Land" before Lehi arrived in 600 BC.

Based on the following information, what can be determined on this topic?

"Some scholars estimate that the Western Hemisphere at the time of the first European contact was inhabited by 40 million people who spoke 1,800 different tongues. Another widely accepted estimate suggests that at the time of Columbus more than 15 million speakers throughout the Western Hemisphere used more than 2,000 languages; the geographic divisions within that estimate are 300 separate tongues native to some 1.5 million Native Americans N[orth] of Mexico, 300 different languages spoken by roughly 5 million people in Mexico and Central America, and more than 1,400 distinct tongues used by 9 million Native Americans in South America and the West Indies." http://www.bartleby.com/65/na/NatvAmlang.html

"Although both North and Central America are very diverse areas, South America has a linguistic diversity rivaled by only a few other places in the world with approximately 350 languages still spoken and an estimated 1,500 languages at first European contact.

There are approximately 296 spoken (or formerly spoken) indigenous languages north of Mexico, 269 of which are grouped into 29 families

North America is notable for its linguistic diversity, especially in California state where it alone has 18 genetic units consisting of 74 languages (compare to the mere 3 genetic units in all of Europe:

Archaeological and DNA evidence suggests that the Americas were peopled by migrants from Siberia about 17,000-10,000 years ago. A persistent minority opinion believes instead that humans first spread through the Americas about 30,000 years ago..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_Languages

Assuming the above statements are true:

1. All the indigenous people in North and South America are direct descendants of Lehi and his company. All of these languages and cultures originated from a tiny group of settlers from Israel and this evolution took place in approximately 2000 years, from 600 BC to 1492 AD.

or

2. There must have been others living in North and South America before Lehi arrived.

This question is not intended to disprove the BOM; it's just an attempt to establish where the Lamanites came from.

Have you read "1491"? A great book with a lot of interesting information. Including the fact that the main proponent of the Bering Strait migration no longer feels it is a viable theory. He has changed his mind about the possibility of that migration. You should read this book. It is very revealing and kind of hints that the Book of Mormon story has a lot more support than previously thought.

Marvin

[erichard]

...I personally believe the true descendents of Lehi reside mainly in South America today. Some must be in Central and even North America, but they mixed with other groups who came before them.

...

One more thing:

There is a group that is doing actual Book of Mormon research in South America and not Mesoamerica-- The Nephi Project.

Here is an article about why Peru.

This is a neat powerpoint presentation with their photos from Peru and that area.

Here are more articles.

Richard

[hagoth7]

There is a group that is doing actual Book of Mormon research in South America and not Mesoamerica...

This is one of the *many* things I love about the church...

...the willingness to accommodate differing viewpoints on non-essentials.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Nephite and Lamanite were often employed as a description of political/religious identification and not simply of genetics. I don't see any reason to believe a Lehite language should last more than a few hundred years, if that, given the size of the migrants compared to the others in the land which they moved into.

[Bernard Gui]

2. There must have been others living in North and South America before Lehi arrived.

This question is not intended to disprove the BOM; it's just an attempt to establish where the Lamanites came from.

I choose box #2.

Anyone ever ask the Native Americans where they think they came from?

Bernard

[LifeOnaPlate]

I recommend to all some selections of a series with Brant Gardner on the website "Life On Gold Plates."

First, on "others" here:

http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2008/10/qu...in-book-of.html

Second, on the "Top 5 myths" or misunderstandings of the BoM here:

http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2008/09/br...k-of-myths.html

[Sargon]

I choose box #2.

Anyone ever ask the Native Americans where they think they came from?

Bernard

Yep!

More evidences of the BoM here: http://lehislibrary.wordpress.com/bom-evidences/