Montgomery Price Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 12 And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and awrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land.First, I am in no position to judge this myself, so I've returned to the forums for a bit of clarification...If it is to be believed that this passage prophesies of Christopher Columbus, is it then significant that Columbus encountered the "seed of my brethren" as recently as 500 years ago? That is, significant to the discussion of DNA and the New World.So, if anyone could take the few minutes to explain why this does or does not change what is currently held to be true by apologists or critics, it would be greatly appreciated. I'm certain I'm missing something...
Daniel Peterson Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 No.No "apologist" of whom I'm aware denies that today's native Americans are, or are likely to be, descendants of Lehi.
Zakuska Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 In the biblical sense "brethern" is a pretty broad term which can mean near neighbors not necessarily blood relatives.
Montgomery Price Posted January 20, 2011 Author Posted January 20, 2011 In the biblical sense "brethern" is a pretty broad term which can mean near neighbors not necessarily blood relatives.What about "seed"?Edit: Why would the word "seed" be used in the case that "brethren" would be perfectly sufficient if the reference was simply to non-blood related neighbors?
Zakuska Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 What about "seed"?Edit: Why would the word "seed" be used in the case that "brethren" would be perfectly sufficient if the reference was simply to non-blood related neighbors?"seed of my brethern" would indicate the descendants of non-blood related neighbors.Theres a similar instance in the NT. where "bretheren" is used to denote Christ's non-blood related disciples. (Ie his neighbors) Love thy neighbor as thyself. If it were speaking about Lehi's decendants then it would be more correct to say the Gentile man came to "my seed". or came to those of the "seed of my loins".
Montgomery Price Posted January 20, 2011 Author Posted January 20, 2011 "seed of my brethern" would indicate the descendants of non-blood related neighbors.Theres a similar instance in the NT. where "bretheren" is used to denote Christ's non-blood related disciples. (Ie his neighbors) Love thy neighbor as thyself. If it were speaking about Lehi's decendants then it would be more correct to say the Gentile man came to "my seed". or came to those of the "seed of my loins".Ah. I've found some more references to "seed of my brethren", and a distinction is made by Nephi.1 Nephi 12:19 And while the angel spake these words, I beheld and saw that the seed of my brethren did contend against my seed, according to the word of the angel; and because of the pride of my seed, and the temptations of the devil, I beheld that the seed of my brethren did overpower the people of my seed.1 Nephi 12:15 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the people of my seed gathered together in multitudes against the seed of my brethrenSo, what do we know about "brethren" besides it could possibly mean what you say? Do we know anything definite?
Zakuska Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 Ah. I've found some more references to "seed of my brethren", and a distinction is made by Nephi.So, what do we know about "brethren" besides it could possibly mean what you say? Do we know anything definite?From this the "seed of my brethern" is obviously speaking of the decendants of Laman and Lemuel vs the descdants of Nephi, who, not wanting anything to do with the law of Moses, more than likely and as the text seems to narrate, mixed their seed with non-Israelite inhabitants. Not to mention the Mulekites and the possibly non-israelite servant of Laban and his family whom Nephi and co married.
Obiwan Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 This is easy, and really shows the "strawman" that anti-mormon DNA arguments are.Lehi's "blood" very easily could be within every single Native American, or at the very least most, and it not show as DNA, especially when we don't even know what Lehi's DNA even was. DNA only shows the "major" line, not every single line of ancestry. Thus, it's not surprising that the major line shown would be basically Asiatic, when Lehi's party was a small group inserting itself into a large continent in which their clearly would have been others already existing, others in which the BOM itself mentions.No Mormon nor LDS scholar that I've ever known of has ever claimed that Lehi's party was the "only" people on the entire continent, and that all the people of said continent are ONLY descended from Lehi. That is a strawman and false assumption from LDS leaders words and scripture created by anti-mormons. It is the taking of a little truth and perverting it to create a great lie for their own evil and ignorant devices against the Church.
Vance Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 First, I am in no position to judge this myself, so I've returned to the forums for a bit of clarification...If it is to be believed that this passage prophesies of Christopher Columbus, is it then significant that Columbus encountered the "seed of my brethren" as recently as 500 years ago? That is, significant to the discussion of DNA and the New World.So, if anyone could take the few minutes to explain why this does or does not change what is currently held to be true by apologists or critics, it would be greatly appreciated. I'm certain I'm missing something...Well, Columbus did get to Mesoamerica.http://mappery.com/map-of/Columbus-Voyages-Map
Mudcat Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 "seed of my brethern" would indicate the descendants of non-blood related neighbors.I don't really follow this Zakuska. What is the basis for it?
MichaelM Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 No.No "apologist" of whom I'm aware denies that today's native Americans are, or are likely to be, descendants of Lehi.http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Lamanites/Referenced_in_the_Doctrine_and_Covenants"The LGT assumes that a small number of Lehites were introduced into a larger "sea" of native peoples, most of whom were of presumably of Asiatic origin. Critics mistake the use of the term "Lamanite" as requiring descent from Lehi through his son, Laman. But, from very early in the Book of Mormon record, it is clear that the term "Lamanite" does not refer to descent, but to political and religious affiliation""The use of the term "Lamanites" to describe the American Indians was Joseph's word choice"
zerinus Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Lamanites/Referenced_in_the_Doctrine_and_Covenants"The LGT assumes that a small number of Lehites were introduced into a larger "sea" of native peoples, most of whom were of presumably of Asiatic origin. Critics mistake the use of the term "Lamanite" as requiring descent from Lehi through his son, Laman. But, from very early in the Book of Mormon record, it is clear that the term "Lamanite" does not refer to descent, but to political and religious affiliation""The use of the term "Lamanites" to describe the American Indians was Joseph's word choice"The Doctrine and Covenants identifies the Lamanites as
Analytics Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 I don't really follow this Zakuska. What is the basis for it?I think what he's getting at is that Nephi considered the Mayans who greated him in the New World to be his brothers in the same way that the strangers at the local church are your brothers and sisters.
Kiviuq Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 This is easy, and really shows the "strawman" that anti-mormon DNA arguments are....No Mormon nor LDS scholar that I've ever known of has ever claimed that Lehi's party was the "only" people on the entire continent, and that all the people of said continent are ONLY descended from Lehi. That is a strawman and false assumption from LDS leaders words and scripture created by anti-mormons. It is the taking of a little truth and perverting it to create a great lie for their own evil and ignorant devices against the Church.I
Calm Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 DNA is a relatively new concept, I would hesitate before equating it with how the ancients understood "seed".IF I understand one of Meldrum's arguments, this is a fundamental problem of his assumptions---that a remnant can only be a remnant if one can physically identify it as such and he makes the further assumption that we should be able to do so with the science of today, which forces (allows) him to limit his alleged remnant to a distinct population located in a limited area of the US contrary to what has been taught by modern prophets and also very problematic is that he discards science when it contradicts his assumptions making for a very piecemeal approach (he prooftexts not only the BoM and prophetic sayings, but science as well).
Zakuska Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 I don't really follow this Zakuska. What is the basis for it?Brethren in a bibilical sense does not have to denote blood relation.eg. Were all the Philipians Blood related to Paul?Philip 48 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are atrue, whatsoever things are bhonest, whatsoever things are cjust, whatsoever things are dpure, whatsoever things are elovely, fwhatsoever things are of good report; if there be any gvirtue, and if there be any praise, hthink on these things.In Nephi's case, as Monty showed, the people he is talking about are the descendants of his brothers Laman and Lemuel, as apposed to "his seed" (ie descendants)
Zakuska Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 The Doctrine and Covenants identifies the Lamanites as
LeSellers Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 where does the "half tribe of Manasah" fit into this?It doesn't. Was it divided? Half in the Northern Kingdom and half in the Southern Kingdom? No.When Joshua led the children of Israel into Canaan, three groups had already opted to have their inheritance on the east side of the Jordan River. One of these was half of the tribe of Manasseh (the others were Gad and Reuben, to the south). They chose because there was grazing land there for their cattle. The other half of Manasseh received a contiguous inheritance on the west bank, north of Ephraim and south of Issachar. They were under an obligation to help the other tribes conquer Canaan, and were released from that obligation years later (see Josh 22). Lehi
Mudcat Posted January 22, 2011 Posted January 22, 2011 Brethren in a bibilical sense does not have to denote blood relation.eg. Were all the Philipians Blood related to Paul?Philip 48 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are atrue, whatsoever things are bhonest, whatsoever things are cjust, whatsoever things are dpure, whatsoever things are elovely, fwhatsoever things are of good report; if there be any gvirtue, and if there be any praise, hthink on these things.In Nephi's case, as Monty showed, the people he is talking about are the descendants of his brothers Laman and Lemuel, as apposed to "his seed" (ie descendants)In regards to the verse in Philippians, I think it would be fair to say that Paul is writing to a group that is spiritually united in brother/sisterhood. So certainly, I would agree that Paul is not speaking of direct blood relations, more importantly he is speaking of spiritual relation. However, I don't see that such a qualifier of spiritual kinship existed between the two.I am no expert on the matter, but I would ask you if you would agree that the Lamanites were the spiritual brothers and sisters of Nephi?Your claim was that it meant non-blood related peoples, but I don't really understand how the Lamanites weren't blood related to the Nephites, if indeed such people existed. Seems to me that anyone that sprung from the seed of Abraham and claimed such as their progenitor would be well inclined to use the term.As I think about it, if the Lamanites and Nephites did indeed exist. In this particular case. One could likely draw the conclusion by inuendo that even though the Lamanites may have rejected or bastardized their initial beliefs. They did not divorce themselves from their progenitor and the statement was simply meant to draw them to the common bond that united both. What do you think?
zerinus Posted January 22, 2011 Posted January 22, 2011 But how literally can we take this?The BOM itself Identifies Lehi coming from the tribe of Manassah not Judah.The question I have... where does the "half tribe of Manasah" fit into this? Was it divided? Half in the Northern Kingdom and half in the Southern Kingdom? There are also the Mulekites (of Jewish blood) to contend with who were of Judah and incorporated into the population and I beleive ended up as Lamanites..The word "Jew" is used in both the Book of Mormon as well as the Doctrine and Covenant as a generic name for the house of Israel, much as it is in modern English as a whole.
DonBradley Posted January 22, 2011 Posted January 22, 2011 What about "seed"?Edit: Why would the word "seed" be used in the case that "brethren" would be perfectly sufficient if the reference was simply to non-blood related neighbors?Because the understanding is that they are, in fact, seed--descendants. Everyone in the New World in the generation of Columbus's visit should have been a descendant of anyone living in the New World around 588 BC who still had living descendants in 1492.Look at it this way: from 1492 back to 588 BC = 2080 yearsLet's assume 25 years to a generation among the Native Americans.2080 divided by 25 gives us 83 generations.Recall that each generation one goes back there are double the number of ancestral niches on the family tree.So, 83 generations back there are 2 to the 83rd power such niches or "slots," or about 10 septillion (approximately 10 million billion billion).You'll note, of course, that this is many times over the number of people living in the New World in Lehi's sons' generation (or in all generations combined), which means there was plenty of duplication in the family tree, from intermarriage, and also means there is an extremely high probability that a person in the New World that far back who was an ancestor to anyone living in the New World in 1492 was also an ancestor to everyone living in the New World in 1492.Don
blackstrap Posted January 23, 2011 Posted January 23, 2011 As an aside, can anyone give me sources on when and by whom it was decided that Columbus was the Gentile referred to in the scriptures. We know that Leif Ericson ( or some other Scandahovian) preceded Columbus to the New world by a couple of centuries .Don't tell Rod M .
brightpath Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 From this the "seed of my brethern" is obviously speaking of the decendants of Laman and Lemuel vs the descdants of Nephi, who, not wanting anything to do with the law of Moses, more than likely and as the text seems to narrate, mixed their seed with non-Israelite inhabitants. Not to mention the Mulekites and the possibly non-israelite servant of Laban and his family whom Nephi and co married.All the people with Lehi were of Israelite lineage. The Mulekites were of Judah through Zedekiah and Zoram was an Israelite too. If not Laban would have never hired a Gentile to be his servant and look after the brass plates and Nephi would have never invited him to come with them. America was reserved for Israel. The seed of my brethren refers to Nephi's people. The Nephites and Lamanites mixed with each other throughout the years. There were no non Israelites in America until the explorers came from Europe.
TAO Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 There were no non Israelites in America until the explorers came from Europe.We do not know this. For all we know, there could have been other peoples there before them.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.