the incredible expanding, shrinking, and disappearing Lehites

[Dr. Jd]

I hate to qoute "Mormon Doctrine," (the book) but in it Bruce R. postulated that there were other individuals living in the Americas when the Lehites arrived (and he wasn't refrencing the Jaredites.

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

I would like to add that the Portuguese version of the Book of Mormon has read among the ancestors since the 90s.

The Spanish Book of Mormon maintains the principal ancestors...

English had among added I think in 06 or 07.

[Thinking]

I hate to qoute "Mormon Doctrine," (the book) but in it Bruce R. postulated that there were other individuals living in the Americas when the Lehites arrived (and he wasn't refrencing the Jaredites.

I believe this is the statement to which you refer:

The American Indians, however, as Columbus found them also had other blood than that of Israel in their veins. (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 33)

However, if you continue, you will read McConkie's conclusion:

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." (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 33)

[Thinking]

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Lamanites/Relationship_to_Amerindians

These articles are always interesting to read because I know what was taught "back in the day." Also, I do check references and sometimes I find a better statement than what I first quoted.

And Lehi and his family became the ancestors of all of the Indian and Mestizo tribes in North and South and Central America and in the islands of the sea, for in the middle of their history there were those who left America in ships of their making and went to the islands of the sea... The term Lamanite includes all Indians and Indian mixtures, such as the Polynesians, the Guatemalans, the Peruvians, as well as the Sioux, the Apache, the Mohawk, the Navajo, and others. It is a large group of great people. (Spencer W. Kimball, Of Royal Blood, Ensign July 1971)

[semlogo]

Brilliant. I wonder what the context is. Oh that is right, he is talking about the idea that we evolved from apes. Sorry but that is just a theory and one that has not been remotly proven. And he was not talking about rejecting facts but that of unproven theories and to seek for revelation from heveans. I doubt very much that you understand what Packer was saying.

theory does not represtn fact sorry. You have no case. Faith does not trump facts. You have simply mis-represented Packers quote. Typical of you and your ilk.

I'm not defending the troll, but you have no idea what you're talking about regarding evolution. You also clearly don't understand the difference between a scientific theory and the colloquial understanding of the word theory.

[Deborah]

"When confronted by evidence in the rocks below, rely on the witness of the heavens above

[rodheadlee]

I think the key words in McConkie's conclusion would be "blood lineage of Israel" vs blood lineage of the Jews. Just what would the blood lineage of Israel be expected to look like?

[mfbukowski]

I think the key words in McConkie's conclusion would be "blood lineage of Israel" vs blood lineage of the Jews. Just what would the blood lineage of Israel be expected to look like?

Exactly.

What would the DNA of a "Washingtonian" look like? Or someone who lives in Cincinnati? When people are constantly moving, captured, set free and dispersed, constantly mixing with other peoples, they are not going to have a definable pattern.

[Dr. Jd]

I think the key words in McConkie's conclusion would be "blood lineage of Israel" vs blood lineage of the Jews. Just what would the blood lineage of Israel be expected to look like?

Exactly, I started a post on that idea the other day.

[steelyray]

This whole thread has devolved into speculative arguments about DNA evidence from people who have no real understanding of what they're really talking about.

Splitting hairs between Jews and Israelis in order to defend the obtuseness of an elder's statement, who has said a whole host of other obtuse things is the hallmark of absurd.

The trollish newbie is right; sometimes the facts get in the way of the Mormon faith, or else you wouldn't have quotes like: 'not all history is useful.'

[Craig Paxton]

Brilliant. I wonder what the context is. Oh that is right, he is talking about the idea that we evolved from apes. Sorry but that is just a theory and one that has not been remotly proven. And he was not talking about rejecting facts but that of unproven theories and to seek for revelation from heveans. I doubt very much that you understand what Packer was saying.

theory does not represtn fact sorry. You have no case. Faith does not trump facts. You have simply mis-represented Packers quote. Typical of you and your ilk.

LOL...well at least I now know what I'm dealing with. This is not the thread to discuss the reality of evolution but...when you make such silly statements as "Sorry but that is just a theory and one that has not been remotly proven" you are really exposing your lack of education in this subject. Whether you like it or not....evolution is a reality...it has taken place and it IS still taking place. In fact without evolution...NOTHING in the natural world makes sense.

The so-called "theory of evolution"...is a theory...just like the "theory of gravity" or the "theory of relativity" or the "theory of flight" Are these also "theories" that you doubt to be true? Yet each of these "theories" are reality and fact just like evolution....at least in the real world.

BTW: Man did not evolve from apes....but from a common ancestor millions of years ago

[steelyray]

No they were in fact religious - the wars described are primarily between the faithful Nephites and Lamanites lead by religious dissenters from the Nephites.

Yes. The monetary denominations of the Nephites are only described because they are necessary to understand the offer Zeezrom was making - a religious story.

Not at all. We have very little real information outside the Book of Mormon on what tribes actually existed during the time periods of the Book of Mormon, and the principle "tribe" described by the BoM - the Nephites - were systematically destroyed by their enemies more than a thousand years before Columbus.

Before modern times the bulk of most armies was unwillingly impressed into service. The Jaredites did the same. They gathered their people over the space of four years before the final battle, and explicit mention is made of arming their women and children as well.

There are traces remaining of what we call the Olmec civilization, and the memory of the destruction is preserved in the Book of Mormon. There were no other survivors to carry it forward.

If you study the history of real, actual places, this is not how wars typically go. It would be terribly odd for there to not have been a dominating winner after so many rounds, especially in battles involving close hand-to-hand combat where the advantage is heavily dependent upon the ability of one side or the other to surround the opposition.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

LOL

BTW: Man did not evolve from apes....but from a common ancestor millions of years ago

Lol indeed.Prove it.

You can go here to make your case.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/50001-junk-dna/

BTW I am rather agnostic on the theory of evolution.

[Jason]

If you study the history of real, actual places, this is not how wars typically go. It would be terribly odd for there to not have been a dominating winner after so many rounds, especially in battles involving close hand-to-hand combat where the advantage is heavily dependent upon the ability of one side or the other to surround the opposition.

Why should anyone expect the Jaredite war of extermination to have been "typcial"? Especially when the account which describes it makes it explicit that the war is God's judgement in action?

[semlogo]

Lol indeed.Prove it.

You can go here to make your case.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/50001-junk-dna/

BTW I am rather agnostic on the theory of evolution.

It's been proven already. You simply need to educate yourself.

[Deborah]

It's been proven already. You simply need to educate yourself.

I'm familiar with the research which shows a common ancestor in a separate line from the apes, but to say it's "proven"??? How can something so long ago with so little evidence be called proven, especially as the theories have changed over the years and are still being developed.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm familiar with the research which shows a common ancestor in a separate line from the apes, but to say it's "proven"??? How can something so long ago with so little evidence be called proven, especially as the theories have changed over the years and are still being developed.

That is my point. I am not claiming that the theory is wrong or does not have merrit. I am just saying that it is far from being proving and is far from being factual. Until they have a common ancestor then that would be a fact that at least helps the thoery. And evolution covers a wide range of things.

Either way, I reject that faith trumps facts.

[semlogo]

I'm familiar with the research which shows a common ancestor in a separate line from the apes, but to say it's "proven"??? How can something so long ago with so little evidence be called proven, especially as the theories have changed over the years and are still being developed.

There's a mountain of evidence demonstrating it, from DNA to fossil evidence. It happened - there's no question about it. The fine details of how things evolved continue to be better understood, but there's no question that the evolution took place and continues to take place.

[semlogo]

That is my point. I am not claiming that the theory is wrong or does not have merrit. I am just saying that it is far from being proving and is far from being factual. Until they have a common ancestor then that would be a fact that at least helps the thoery. And evolution covers a wide range of things.

Either way, I reject that faith trumps facts.

Um, they do. Please study this - and from legitimate sources, not home-made creationist websites.

[Deborah]

There's a mountain of evidence demonstrating it, from DNA to fossil evidence. It happened - there's no question about it. The fine details of how things evolved continue to be better understood, but there's no question that the evolution took place and continues to take place.

None of us are arguing that there isn't evolution. The argument is on the certainty of how it happened, which cannot be proven no matter how much DNA or fossil evidence you have.

[Nathair/|\]

If you study the history of real, actual places, this is not how wars typically go. It would be terribly odd for there to not have been a dominating winner after so many rounds, especially in battles involving close hand-to-hand combat where the advantage is heavily dependent upon the ability of one side or the other to surround the opposition.

From Hugh Nibley, "The World of the Jaredites"

The insane wars of the Jaredite chiefs ended in the complete annihilation of both sides, with the kings the last to go. The same thing had almost happened earlier in the days of Akish, when a civil war between him and his sons reduced the population to thirty (Ether 9:12). This all seems improbable to us, but two circumstances peculiar to Asiatic warfare explain why the phenomenon is by no means without parallel: (1) Since every war is strictly a personal contest between kings, the battle must continue until one of the kings falls or is taken. (2) And yet things are so arranged that the king must be very last to fall, the whole army existing for the sole purpose of defending his person. This is clearly seen in the game of chess, in which all pieces are expendable except the king, who can never be taken. "The shah in chess," writes M. E. Moghadam, "is not killed and does not die. The game is terminated when the shah is pressed to a position from which he cannot escape. This is in line with all good traditions of chess playing, and back of it the tradition of capturing the king in war rather than slaying him whenever this could be accomplished."³⁶ You will recall the many instances in the book of Ether in which kings were kept in prison for many years but not killed. In the code of medieval chivalry, taken over from central Asia, the person of the king is sacred, and all others must perish in his defense. After the battle the victor may do what he will with his rival

[semlogo]

None of us are arguing that there isn't evolution. The argument is on the certainty of how it happened, which cannot be proven no matter how much DNA or fossil evidence you have.

It certainly can. What an odd position to take. Something can't be proven no matter how much evidence there is?

[Deborah]

It certainly can. What an odd position to take. Something can't be proven no matter how much evidence there is?

You are still left with the interpretation of that evidence and whether it's complete or not.

[semlogo]

You are still left with the interpretation of that evidence and whether it's complete or not.

There is no such thing as complete evidence - you can always find more. In fact, they are, every day.

It's not really a matter of interpretation. It's a matter of following where the evidence leads.

[morgan.deane]

Why should anyone expect the Jaredite war of extermination to have been "typcial"? Especially when the account which describes it makes it explicit that the war is God's judgement in action?

You make a good point Jason. There is no rule that says the Jaredite civil war would have to be typical. Although I am working on a paper that compares their conflict to a Chinese civil war and shows that it was typical. I hope you don't mind me adding part my conclusion from the paper:

In the political and economic structure leading to the war, the specific prosecution of the hostilities, the duration of the conflict, its intensity, its causalities, and the historian