All Native Americans are Descendants of Jews

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski,

Your original statement was as follows:

Now you say that calling the Lehites "Jews" is like calling Frenchmen "Europeans" and that Lehites were "Jews" culturally or religiously, not tribally. This is somewhat confusing. Frenchmen are a subset of Europeans, just as Californians are a subset of Americans (and "Europeans" in this context is a geographical term, not a cultural or religious one). If "Jews" were a separate tribe from the tribe to which the Lehites belonged, then calling the Lehites Jews would be like calling Frenchmen Spaniards, not like calling them Europeans.

In any case, the Book of Mormon does not refer to the Lehites as Jews in a mere cultural or religious sense; it asserts, "they are descendants of the Jews" (2 Ne. 30:4). "Descendants" here can plausibly be understood only in an ethnic sense.

Not so, any more than speaking of "descendants of Europeans".

Your prejudice is to stir up controversy and see conflict where it doesn't exist in some ambiguous passage or other. You have to do that- your living as an anti-Mormon depends on it.

My prejudice as a member of the church is to interpret ambiguous statements in another way.

Clearly the statements are ambiguous. The importance you place on that ambiguity rests on your pre-conceived prejudices. Perhaps I stated it too strongly at first, as already pointed out by Le Sellars.

[zerinus]

mfbukowski,

If a non-LDS might be permitted to make an observation on this subject....

You wrote:

Although the Book of Mormon never calls Lehi's family "Jews," it does say explicitly that they were descendants of Jews:

[Rob Bowman]

mfbukowski,

You wrote (emphasis added):

Your prejudice is to stir up controversy and see conflict where it doesn't exist in some ambiguous passage or other. You have to do that- your living as an anti-Mormon depends on it.

I am going to start reporting every single post that makes this asinine and offensive accusation against me. I have already explained objectively and factually why it is incorrect. Biblical scholarship, not "anti-Mormonism," is my profession by education, training, and experience. I currently teach biblical hermeneutics and New Testament studies at an accredited Christian university. My main area of expertise with regard to non-evangelical forms of Christianity is dealing with Jehovah's Witnesses (again, focusing almost entirely on their approach to biblical interpretation and theology). My interest in Mormonism is focused primarily on issues where hermeneutics and biblical scholarship come into contact with LDS scholarship and apologetics. Where LDS doctrines and practices coincide with evangelicalism, as in its affirmation of the physical resurrection of Jesus or its advocacy of the pro-life position, I am happy to acknowledge these commonalities and to point them out to my fellow evangelicals. I don't approach any religion with an agenda of discrediting everything or anything it says. I look at what it says, look at the reasons or evidence it presents in support, and assess it as objectively as I can (which is not to claim that I do so perfectly). These are the facts about who I am and what my interests are. You and several others here don't care about these facts. Your "prejudice" is to see evil motives in everyone who dares to disagree with Mormonism. You have made up your mind about me and assume that if I say something it must be wrong (even when other Mormons agree that it is right!) and that I am saying it out of base motives.

What I said regarding the statement in the Book of Mormon is simply a fact. I made no effort to "stir up controversy" with it. I didn't even claim that there was anything problematic with it. There are half-decent explanations from LDS sources for the particular issue here (how the Lehites can be descended from Jews if they are of the tribe of Manasseh), but your explanation happens not to be one of them, as I see it. I very politely presented statements from LDS scriptures of relevance to the topic of this thread, and you respond not by engaging the evidence with civility but instead by attacking my motives.

So far as I can see, I am the only evangelical biblical scholar participating in this forum. I'm sure the sort of treatment I have gotten today is one of the reasons why others won't do so. Thankfully, there are Mormons here who are civil and understand that my intentions here are honorable, even though they strongly disagree with my views. I would be grateful if you would adopt that attitude.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

Yes, I think you are likely correct about this. Like modern Christians, the Book of Mormon appears to use the term "Jews" to mean Israelites.

The word "Jew" is used in those scriptures genercally, to mean the house of Israel, as shown in these verses:

2 Nephi 33

:

7 I have charity for my people, and great faith in Christ that I shall meet many souls spotless at his judgment-seat.

8 I have charity for the Jew

[dougtheavenger]

Over on a Catholic forum (I assume I can't link to the thread in question?), LDS critics are making the claim that Joseph Smith claimed "boldly and without exception that all the native peoples of the Americas were descendants of Jews who had traveled from the middle east".

What is the real situation here? Did Joseph Smith actually make this claim?

All American Indians are not descended from Jews.

...

Some are descended from Phonecian.

[Bob Crockett]

Although the Book of Mormon never calls Lehi's family "Jews," it does say explicitly that they were descendants of Jews:

[Nathair/|\]

Mike Ash, who posts here, just published a column in Mormon Times that deals with the issue in the OP.

5. Joseph Smith and the Doctrine and Covenants refer to the Native Americans in their area as Lamanites.According to Great Lakes theorists, the fact that Joseph Smith referred to the local Native Americans as Lamanites (both in his personal writings as well as in the Doctrine and Covenants) is strong evidence (if not

[Bob Crockett]

All American Indians are not descended from Jews.

...

Some are descended from Phonecian.

Not according to Joseph Smith in the Wentworth letter. (Was this quoted above?) "The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country." There's no parsing of those words to think that Indians were not descended from the Lamanites. And then, with the title page of the Book of Mormon taken directly from the plates, there isn't any getting around the concept that the Indians are all descendants of the Lamanites, or so taught Joseph Smith.

Does that mean they are the principal ancestors? No. Does that mean that this was intended to apply to Siberians who might have come across the Bering Strait piecemeal over the centuries? No.

My references only pertain to what Joseph Smith taught. Nothing more. Nothing less.

[Rob Bowman]

rcrocket,

Once again, I must point out that the Book of Mormon says that the Lehites were "descendants from the Jews" (2 Ne. 30:4). Again, some explanations for this statement are better than others. That Lehite was a Jew in a "political" sense is not one of them. If Wolfgang moves to England with his children and then they all move to the United States, would it be accurate to say that Wolfgang's family were "descended from the English"?

This has received extensive treatment in LDS literature for decades; there is an entire chapter on this subject in Doctrines of Salvation.

Lehi was considered a political Jew because he resided in Jerusalem and was a member of the house of Israel. Although the analogy is not precisely exact, Benjaminites lived in the lower kingdom with Jerusalem and were commonly considered to be Jews, like Paul.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

rcrocket,

Once again, I must point out that the Book of Mormon says that the Lehites were "descendants from the Jews" (2 Ne. 30:4). Again, some explanations for this statement are better than others. That Lehite was a Jew in a "political" sense is not one of them. If Wolfgang moves to England with his children and then they all move to the United States, would it be accurate to say that Wolfgang's family were "descended from the English"?

Bowman-

You are playing a semantics game. You know well that the Book of Mormon teaches that Lehi was a descendent of Joseph through his son Manasseh. You also know that the southern kingdom was the Kingdom of Judah and those Hebrews under that rule were "Jews". Was Paul lying when he called himself a "Jew"?

[Nathair/|\]

What tribe(s) were Sariah, Zoram and Ishmael's wife members of?

Though my wife has Campbell ancestors (to my shame), since she married me, she and her descendants are now Harknesses. They are also descendants of the Campbells.

[Rob Bowman]

BOML,

Please address me civilly, either as "Mr. Bowman" or "Rob."

No, I'm not playing a semantic game. Yes, I know what the Book of Mormon says about this. No, Paul wasn't lying. Yes, the southern kingdom was called Judah. Yes, Paul can use the word "Jew" in a broader sense than "physical descendant of Judah." No, this doesn't quite address my point regarding the expression "descended from the Jews."

Bowman-

You are playing a semantics game. You know well that the Book of Mormon teaches that Lehi was a descendent of Joseph through his son Manasseh. You also know that the southern kingdom was the Kingdom of Judah and those Hebrews under that rule were "Jews". Was Paul lying when he called himself a "Jew"?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

BOML,

Please address me civilly, either as "Mr. Bowman" or "Rob."

No, I'm not playing a semantic game. Yes, I know what the Book of Mormon says about this. No, Paul wasn't lying. Yes, the southern kingdom was called Judah. Yes, Paul can use the word "Jew" in a broader sense than "physical descendant of Judah." No, this doesn't quite address my point regarding the expression "descended from the Jews."

Having had to endure your endless posts on YahooGroups being civil with you isn't one of my strong points, but I shall endeavor to try...

What IS your point exactly, Rob?

[USU78]

Who wrote the Book of 2nd Nephi?

Did the first Nephi write it himself?

Did whoever write the book write it in Hebrew?

Was it written in some other language?

Was its original version altered upon being engraved on the plates?

Was its original version altered in whole or in part by Mormon or some other, unnamed redactor?

What phrase in Hebrew (or whatever other language) was rendered in English "descendants of the Jews"?

Was the JSJr translation of the phrase a tight or loose translation?

USU "Wonders how casual students of the BoM would answer these questions" 78

[mfbukowski]

The word "Jew" is used in those scriptures genercally, to mean the house of Israel, as shown in these verses:

Thanks for making the point much more elegantly than I did. That is essentially what I was trying to say.

[brightpath]

Lehi>Mannaseh Ishmael>Ephraim Mulek>Judah So you have the tribe of Joseph and Judah present in the Lamanites which is the Native Americans. To those of you that stated Joseph Smith was inexperienced when he wrote the Wentworth Letters, How can that be. A prophet of God being confused, not knowing DNA evidence. Come on! Was Moroni wrong to0, when he appeared to Joseph Smith 3 separate times and rehearsed the same things to him, telling him the inhabitants of America were the Natives. The Native Americans of this country are the Lamanites and are the remnant of Jacob. Joseph Smith was correct. When he first published the BofM who were the first people he sent missionaries too? The Native Americans. Brigham Young taught this too, and so on down the line. Look it up its in the history of the church! Don't let science confuse you. I would think we would take what our church has taught and past prophets over science which is mans wisdom on disproving religion.

[Thinking]

If he had said this while a prophet it might help your case a little, but even prophets do not speak canonized scripture with every word from their mouths.

And of course this was said before he was in fact a prophet, and at the time, was the widely held position of virtually all LDS.

1. The members of the first presidency and the quorum of the twelve are sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators.

2. It never ceases to amaze me that an LDS apostle/prophet can deliver a prepared speech at an official church meeting, yet somehow when he is proven to be wrong, he is given a pass because "even prophets do not speak canonized scripture with every word from their mouths."

[Log]

If the Book of Mormon is historically accurate, is there a problem with the claim on its face, regardless of canonicity or source?

[mfbukowski]

delete

[Mortal Man]

Joseph's Wentworth Letter reads like a college freshman's brief summary of the content of the Book of Mormon after a first read through. I'd give him an A, but would never confuse what he said with deep scholarship of the kind we expect from university professors.

We should be grateful to the Lord for providing us modern-day university professors to clear up the confusion caused by freshman-like blunders of latter-day prophets.

[Robert F. Smith]

We should be grateful to the Lord for providing us modern-day university professors to clear up the confusion caused by freshman-like blunders of latter-day prophets.

Just like Brother Joseph, you and I (and all those hoity-toity university professors) are mortal men. Just because Joseph translated the Book of Mormon doesn't make him a Book of Mormon scholar of the sort we expect from university departments of history, religion, and languages, and that wasn't necessary in the economy of God anyhow.

It is a huge mistake on your part to demand of Joseph (or of any modern-day prophet of the LDS Church) to have a doctorate in linguistics or ancient Near Eastern studies, any more than we would demand that he know the finer points of plumbing or electricity -- for that we call in a plumber or electrician.

[Robert F. Smith]

If the Book of Mormon is historically accurate, is there a problem with the claim on its face, regardless of canonicity or source?

Are you referring to its title as "The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ"? What's the problem?

[Robert F. Smith]

1. The members of the first presidency and the quorum of the twelve are sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators.

2. It never ceases to amaze me that an LDS apostle/prophet can deliver a prepared speech at an official church meeting, yet somehow when he is proven to be wrong, he is given a pass because "even prophets do not speak canonized scripture with every word from their mouths."

Wrong church. The official Doctrine of Infallibility was promulgated at Vatican I in Rome.

Jeremiah had to put up with the same mocking and claims of false prophecy. There is nothing new under the sun.

[Log]

Are you referring to its title as "The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ"? What's the problem?

It doesn't matter if the claim that all Amerinds are descended from "Jews" is canonical, or whatever. Let's flesh this idea out a bit - assuming the Book of Mormon is historically accurate, is there a logical or evidential problem with the claim that all Amerinds, as of the mid-1800s, share(d) a common ancestor that was on the scene around 600 BC to 400 AD, and that this common ancestor was a "Jew," whatever that word meant to Nephi?

It doesn't appear so; rather, it appears that this thread is merely a vehicle for fools to mock and point their fingers in scorn at us from a building without a foundation.

[cdowis]

1. The members of the first presidency and the quorum of the twelve are sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators.

2. It never ceases to amaze me that an LDS apostle/prophet can deliver a prepared speech at an official church meeting, yet somehow when he is proven to be wrong, he is given a pass because "even prophets do not speak canonized scripture with every word from their mouths."

we understand that there is a difference between doctrine and factual issues.

For example, the geography is a factual issue, subject to intellectual investigation. A prophet, seer and revelator can express his opinion, and he may be factually incorrect. We give him a "pass" because BOM geography is not a doctrinal issue. When he speaks about the text and doctrine of the BOM, we listen to him as a prophet.

The antimormons are unable to comprehend the difference.

Let's put it in another context. Tom Cruz may be a great actor, and we can carefully listen to him about acting as an expert. But when he speaks about geography or economics, we can give him a pass if his opinions are factually incorrect.

Are you able to wrap your mind around that basic concept.