Historicity Of The Bom

[Pahoran]

Despite your assertion, I'm not stupid….you don’t have to talk down to me. I understand the basis of your argument quite well. When you're willing to have a discussion based on mutual respect between two adults rather than treating me as some silly child....I'll be more than happy to have discussion with you. Sometimes the need to feel you win an argument over rides the opportunity for an honest discussion...stop trying to make points and lets have an honest discussion. We may end up agreeing with each other or agreeing to disagree...but through the process...maybe we can leave the discussion respecting each other

Well Craig, I'm sorry if you think I'm treaing you as if you are stupid. But you are the one who seemed to think it was ridiculous to even imagine Lehi having 60 million descendants all up and down the American continents; yet as the case of Karl Der Grosse demonstrates, it's well within the realms of possibility. So what was your objection to that again?

Likewise, you were the one who wanted to interpret then-Elder Kimball as saying that all Native Americans were descended only from Lehi. Note that the "most-ridiculous-interpretation-possible" is just a variant of the "straw man" fallacy, in that it attacks, not an opponent's actual position, but a caricature thereof.

So, a discussion based upon mutual respect? I'm all for it. But you need to help me out here, Craig. I find it a whole lot easier to have patience with faulty arguments and under-informed assumptions when they're not being used as a platform from which to launch ill-advised attacks upon my faith.

Just FYI.

Regards,

Pahoran

[cdowis]

Oh Brother CFR, CFR...OK....I'll use the Introduction page of the Book of Mormon as an example...where only recently it was changed to reflect reality from “… and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.” To “...and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians".

Since you do not want to be treated as stupid, let's do an adult thing.

Please look up the work "principal" in the dictionary. It does not mean what you pretend it means. It does not mean "they are all/most/primarily the descendants of the Lamanites". It is not a quantitative term, but a qualitative one, specifically "first or highest in rank, importance, value" As an educated, intelligent individual, you should have known that.

The introduction means what it says, and says what it means. It was only changed because stupid people did not bother to look it up to see what it actually meant. (no personal comment intended)

It’s also why internet Mormons believe in a limited geography theory rather than the traditional hemispheric geography theory. Incidentally President Kimball was referring to the hemispheric model when he made his statement.

As I have repeatedly observed, the limited geographic model does not preclude the hemispheric model. Lamanites and Nephites lived throughout the hemisphere, but the text of the BOM is defined within a limited geography, specifically mesoamerica. Again, intelligent, educated individuals are aware that they do not contradict each other.

Why do you think there are multiple theories? Because there are multiple beliefs regarding WHO the Lamanites were and who they decended from. If this question had been resolved in the church there wouldn't be multiple theories.

As you well know, BOM geography is not doctrine, but a intellectual issue by those willing to expend the effort to investigate it. The mission of the church and prophets is to lead us to Christ, not to satisfy our idle curiosity.

[Craig Paxton]

I agree with you; the current introduction reflects reality.

The previous version of the introduction you cite, written as recently as 1981 by Bruce R. McConkie, was always seen as at least somewhat problematic by many Latter-day Saints, but please note that "principal ancestors" did not and could not mean, "only ancestors." In fact, even the 1981 introduction, written by Bruce R. McConkie, clearly allowed for modern NA's to have ancestors other than the Lamanites.

We are in agreement…principle ancestors does not mean “only” and I hope we can also agree that in the end it doesn’t really matter how you or I define the word “Principle” as it is used in Bruce R McConkie’s1981 introduction page…it matters what Bruce R. McConkie wanted the use of this word to mean when he used it in the introduction. So let’s turn to his own words and see who he viewed as the principle ancestors of the Lamanites.

In his book “Mormon Doctrine” under the heading of “American Indians” McConkie states:

“When Columbus discovered America, the native inhabitants, the American Indians, as they were soon to be designated, were people of mixed blood and origin. Chiefly they were Lamanites, but such remnants of the Nephite nation as had not been destroyed had, of course, mingled with the Lamanites. Thus the Indians were Jews by nationality, their forefathers having come out of Jerusalem, from the kingdom of Judah.

Thus also they were of the House of Israel. Lehi was of the tribe of Manasseh, Ishmael of the Tribe of Ephraim, and Muliek of the tribe of Judah. We have no knowledge of the tribe affiliation of Zoram, and it is possible that other tribes may have been represented in the colony that accompanied Muliek. It is primarily the tribes of Benjamin and Judah which made up the kingdom of Judah, but there may have been a sprinkling of all the tribes intermingled with them.

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 Jaradites 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 of these groups would have come the American Indians as they were discovered in the 15^th century.

Since the days of the Spanish conquest and the colonization’s of Mexico and South America, there has been further dilution of the pure Lamanite blood. But with all, for the great majority of the descendants of the original inhabitants of the western Hemisphere, the dominant blood lineage is that of Israel. The Indians were repeatedly called Lamanites in the revelations to the Prophet, and the promise is that in due course they “shall blossom as the rose” that is become again a white and delightsome people as were their ancestors a great many generations ago.”

(Highlights mine)

It is quite clear that Bruce R. McConkie held a belief that the Native American population was principally, chiefly, dominantly, majorily descended from Lehi’s original immigration party sprinkled with other lessor bloodlines throughout the years. While he allowed for “other” blood lines to dilute the original Lehite bloodline…the “Principle” source from wince they sprang was Israel rather than the current view the church and informed Mormon’s (is that better than the use of internet Mormon?) view that Lehi’s party made up a mere droplet in a vast ocean of pre-existing original American inhabitants.

That the church has accepted reality and changed its view of Native Americans being principally descended from Lehi is reflected in its change to McConkies Introduction with the words “Among”. Why is this even being debated? Why is it even being questioned that the church once held this belief and taught it and has changed its position to reflect reality?

Point of order: honest, informed critics of the Church, if such there be, do not cite the baseless "internet Mormon" canard, invented by a notorious internet anti-Mormon for dishonest polemical purposes, as though it has any credibility.

I just thought you ought to know.

Irrespective of its source...it is descriptive of a phenomenom within Mormonism wherein opposing views regarding the origins of Native American populations are held within the same church, stake, ward, quorum or family unit.

But I seem to have lost track of what you are asserting here. What do you think is the reason why informed Latter-day Saints believe the Book of Mormon describes a limited geography? Because whatever the smart set in the great and spacious building have told you, the real reason informed Latter-day Saints believe the Book of Mormon describes a limited geography is because they've read the Book of Mormon and noticed that it describes a limited geography.

The interpretations of informed, thoughtful Latter-day Saints are controlled by the text of the Book of Mormon.

The text, Craig. Again, I just thought you ought to know.

Because whatever the smart set in the great and spacious building have told you??? Another smarmy comment....thought we could move past this kind of comment. Trust me...I have a whole set of my own smarmy comments I have edited out of this post...in an effort to be constructive and build a bridge of understanding.

Regarding the interpretation of the Book of Mormon geography...you forget that an entire generation also read the Book of Mormon and came up with an entirely different understanding of Book of Mormon geography by also reading its pages...(again that is why there is no definitive answer to this question)...it was only after reality didn't support that interpretation that informed Mormon's began to reinterpreted their view of Book of Mormon geography.

I just thought you ought to know. (Sorry couldn't help myself)

Regards,

Craig Paxton

Edited September 20, 2011 by Craig Paxton

[cdowis]

Why did the general church members ignore what JS himself said about the location of the BOM?

Why did the church members ignore the BOM text in describing the location of the Hill Cumorah?

The answer is that the church members took the easy route, by looking at the name of the hill in NY and assuming that it was the same hill as in the BOM text.

It was only after the church members began to have an interest in the archeology and history of the BOM that they began a serious investigation of its geography -- in the text itself, as well as the physical geography. Previously they were primarily concerned with its doctrines and its witness of Jesus Christ, while geography was, and still is, secondary in importance.

Those in the great building loudly proclaim that BOM geography is a doctrine of the church, rather than merely an assumption by church members and leaders alike.

Edited September 20, 2011 by cdowis

[Craig Paxton]

Well Craig, I'm sorry if you think I'm treaing you as if you are stupid. But you are the one who seemed to think it was ridiculous to even imagine Lehi having 60 million descendants all up and down the American continents; yet as the case of Karl Der Grosse demonstrates, it's well within the realms of possibility. So what was your objection to that again?

Yes silly me, I am the one who thought it ridiculous for Lehi to be related to the 60 million inhabitants living up and down the American continents...oh and you conveniently left out the Islands of the Pacific (which I’m guessing, you live upon)

If you are at all familiar with human population diffusion studies throughout the world, yes all present day humans do have common ancestors originating out of Africa. And Native American populations have common ancestors coming out of Asia. And the Pacific Polynesian populations have common ancestors coming out of South East Asia. There is NO genetic connection or otherwise connection between Island Polynesians and Native Americas...at least not within the last 25,000 years.

Expanding ancient populations migrated OUT from original populations for many reasons but primarily in search of viable food sources. In other words they followed food. There is nothing in the historical record to suggest that a small seemingly invisible immigrant party from a foreign land spread its DNA throughout a native population from the tip of South America to the tip of North America to the Islands of the Pacific…nothing, nadda, niltch. Equally there is no evidence of ANY ancient population seeding the entire population of a continental population. Take Rome as an example...a civilization I hope the 2 of us can agree actually existed, even with its vast expansion throughout Europe, Asia Minor and parts of Africa...it still failed to spread Roman DNA throughout its own continent let alone another one and this is fact even though it involved 100's of thousands of sexualy active Roman soldiers,merchants and politicians over thousands of years. In fact, Rome left no apparent genetic footprint on Europe beyond its own boarders. How then would an almost invisable party of less than 250 do so to a population numbering in the 100's of thousands spread over thousands of miles? Well we know the answer to that question...it didn't.

And think of the mechanics of doing so if it had. How exactly does an immigrant arriving in, shall we say, 600 BCE Central America become a forefather of all of the modern day native population? For this to be true there would have actually have been mating between far flung native populations spanning all kinds of geographical obstacles. How and when did this take place? I’ll accept current native populations having been defused from their common Asian forefathers…since we know of the source from wince they sprang…but to suggest that an immigrant population somehow infected this native population is a pretty strong claim…other than the claims made in the Book of Mormon there just isn’t any supporting evidence.

Being myself a decedent of Charlemagne AKA Karl der Grosse, as are most individual with Western European ancestry, I understand your flawed premise by assuming that because Charlemagne had millions of descendants surely Lehi could have also. That’s a huge leap in logic…without any supporting evidence. But what you fail to take into account is HOW Charlemagne had so many descendants including me. #1 he was an actual historical figure. #2 He was royal and royalty spread their DNA through intermarriage across great geographical distances for political purposes. #3 He had multiple wives and children which also increased his descendants. #4 Western Europe was a very static population allowing for more intermarriage among the closed populations. #5 What you also see among Charlemagne’s descendants is that they are primarily limited to Western Europe…or in other words you don’t see his descendants spread (in the ancient world) throughout far flung geographical populations and across distant oceans.

Regards,

Craig Paxton

Edited September 20, 2011 by Craig Paxton

[Robert F. Smith]

We are in agreement…principle ancestors does not mean “only” and I hope we can also agree that in the end it doesn’t really matter how you or I define the word “Principle” as it is used in Bruce R McConkie’s1981 introduction page…it matters what Bruce R. McConkie wanted the use of this word to mean when he used it in the introduction. So let’s turn to his own words and see who he viewed as the principle ancestors of the Lamanites.

In his book “Mormon Doctrine” under the heading of “American Indians” McConkie states:

“When Columbus discovered America, the native inhabitants, the American Indians, as they were soon to be designated, were people of mixed blood and origin. Chiefly they were Lamanites, but such remnants of the Nephite nation as had not been destroyed had, of course, mingled with the Lamanites. Thus the Indians were Jews by nationality, their forefathers having come out of Jerusalem, from the kingdom of Judah.

Thus also they were of the House of Israel. Lehi was of the tribe of Manasseh, Ishmael of the Tribe of Ephraim, and Muliek of the tribe of Judah. We have no knowledge of the tribe affiliation of Zoram, and it is possible that other tribes may have been represented in the colony that accompanied Muliek. It is primarily the tribes of Benjamin and Judah which made up the kingdom of Judah, but there may have been a sprinkling of all the tribes intermingled with them.

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 Jaradites 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 of these groups would have come the American Indians as they were discovered in the 15^th century.

Since the days of the Spanish conquest and the colonization’s of Mexico and South America, there has been further dilution of the pure Lamanite blood. But with all, for the great majority of the descendants of the original inhabitants of the western Hemisphere, the dominant blood lineage is that of Israel. The Indians were repeatedly called Lamanites in the revelations to the Prophet, and the promise is that in due course they “shall blossom as the rose” that is become again a white and delightsome people as were their ancestors a great many generations ago.”

It is quite clear that Bruce R. McConkie held a belief that the Native American population was principally, chiefly, dominantly, majorily descended from Lehi’s original immigration party sprinkled with other lessor bloodlines throughout the years. While he allowed for “other” blood lines to dilute the original Lehite bloodline…the “Principle” source from wince they sprang was Israel rather than the current view the church and informed Mormon’s (is that better than the use of internet Mormon?) view that Lehi’s party made up a mere droplet in a vast ocean of pre-existing original American inhabitants.

That the church has accepted reality and changed its view of Native Americans being principally descended from Lehi is reflected in its change to McConkies Introduction with the words “Among”. Why is this even being debated? Why is it even being questioned that the church once held this belief and taught it and has changed its position to reflect reality?

Irrespective of its source...it is descriptive of a phenomenom within Mormonism wherein opposing views regarding the origins of Native American populations are held within the same church, stake, ward, quorum or family unit.

Regarding the interpretation of the Book of Mormon geography...you forget that an entire generation also read the Book of Mormon and came up with an entirely different understanding of Book of Mormon geography by also reading its pages...(again that is why there is no definitive answer to this question)...it was only after reality didn't support that interpretation that informed Mormon's began to reinterpreted their view of Book of Mormon geography.

Regards,

Craig Paxton

Craig,

It has been said many times before, but it does bear repeating:

The various introductions to published Books of Mormon over the years are not canonical and do not constitute official doctrine. Never have. This likewise includes footnotes and chapter headings. Elder Orson Pratt included a vast array of footnotes in his 1879 edition, most of which were removed by Elder James Talmage for his 1920 edition. These fine gentlemen were smart, sincere guys, and each tried his best to provide the latest information and helps for the reader. Nothing has changed on that score in the interim, except that we now have the internet by which to spread any speculative notion which comes to mind -- often without much reflection.

As has been pointed out, you have gotten the etiology of the limited geography theory completely wrong. Long before the existence of the internet, scholars such as John Sorenson did a careful read of the Book of Mormon to ascertain what the distances between locations must have been. This forced them to do what biblical scholars have generally done: Let the text speak for itself, and correlate it with the real world.

Since the text does not allow the Book of Mormon lands to be much larger than the kingdom of ancient Israel, the hemispheric theories are immediately out the window (Sorenson's 1985 Ancient American Setting provides the details). The other powerful stricture is that we are faced with the internal description of a high culture with writing and real cities built with cement, large populations and significant warfare. Only one culture in the Americas fits the bill: Mesoamerican culture. That the Olmec and later cultures of the region have their ups and downs at the same time as those described in the Book of Mormon can hardly be coincidental, and Sorenson's magnum opus dealing with the hard archeological and anthropological realities has been complete since last year and is being prepared for publication (as announced at his recent Willes Lecture at BYU).

Edited September 21, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[ERayR]

Oh Brother CFR, CFR...OK....I'll use the Introduction page of the Book of Mormon as an example...where only recently it was changed to reflect reality from “… and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.” To “...and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians".

It’s also why internet Mormons believe in a limited geography theory rather than the traditional hemispheric geography theory. Incidentally President Kimball was referring to the hemispheric model when he made his statement.

Why do you think there are multiple theories? Because there are multiple beliefs regarding WHO the Lamanites were and who they decended from. If this question had been resolved in the church there wouldn't be multiple theories.

Your points above have been adequatly answered by others but somehow I am sure you knew the answers before they were posted so I will not waste my time. It leaves me wondering, is it comprehension skills or is it deliberate. Since you so vehemently deny the first then I can only conclude it is deliberate misrepresentation. That being the case I see no further need to attempt to engage you in any kind of meaningful dialog.

[Craig Paxton]

My attempt to set the record straight as I see it:

Seattlegrunge asked “If the BOM claimed that all American Indians were direct descendants from Lehi and that he was a thoroughbred Jew, then I would say we have a silver bullet with today's DNA spectrum of the Native Americans. Culture may have stated that, but the BOM didn't and it was never proclaimed by one of the presidents as direct revelation”

I responded that in fact a president of the church had made such a claim that all Native Americans were descended from Lehi…and posted my source of President Kimball’s statement.

“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” - President Spencer W. Kimball, April 24, 1971

Pahoran then countered by stating that Kimball didn’t claim that the Native population ONLY descended from Lehi. He and I were in agreement on this point…we both agreed that Kimball did not claim that Native Americans only descended from Lehi but I did contended that Kimball held the traditional hemispheric geography view for the setting of the Book of Mormon and that the church has also moved away from this view due to the lack of scientific evidence supporting that view.

ErayR, then asked for CFR which I then provided. Now I can understand that you may not accept my CFR that is your right…but why change it if it reflected reality? But since it did not…it was changed.

Pahoran then went off on some tangent thinking that I was unaware of genealogical generational descendantcy. He then added fire to the discussion by asserting that I had somehow made the allegation that when I provided the CFR for the churches change in its interpretation of Book of Mormon geography by referencing the change to the introduction page of the Book of Mormon with the word “principle” to “among”, I was somehow suggesting that Native Americans “ONLY” descended from Lehi. I never made such a claim…believing such would be downright impossible and a ridiculous belief.

Dwois, then went off on another tangent trying to define what he believed Bruce R. McConkie meant when he used the word principle in his introduction to the Book of Mormon by suggesting that he meant…”first or highest in rank, importance, value” because this supports his view; coupled with his jab that…As an educated, intelligent individual, I should have known that.

Well as “an educated, intelligent individual” I did “the adult thing” and… went to the source himself, Bruce R. McConkie. And to no surprise…Bruce R. McConkie view supported my interpretation of his use of “principle”. I can only imagine how this must have bruised his ego.

So if I can paraphrase his words…the introduction means what Bruce R. McConkie meant it to mean and it says what he meant it to say. That Lehi’s party was the principle, chief, dominant, majority source from wince the modern Native American population sprang. It was only changed to reflect reality because stupid people who don’t bother to look up what Bruce R. McConkie actually said and assume to know what his views were regarding Native Americans. ( no personal comment intended)

He then continued with his subtle jabs…

As I have repeatedly observed, the limited geographic model does not preclude the hemispheric model. Lamanites and Nephites lived throughout the hemisphere, but the text of the BOM is defined within a limited geography, specifically Mesoamerica. Again, intelligent, educated individuals are aware that they do not contradict each other.

Ummmm…actually intelligent, educated individuals do not find any evidence of any Book of Mormon civilization be it Mesoamerica North America or South America. Only Mormon’s believe such, despite the lack of evidence. While I accept that the only plausible interpretation of the text of the Book of Mormon is for a limited geography…as of yet, there is no supporting evidence for such an existence in Mesoamerica or anywhere for that matter.

Regarding his claim that the limited geographic model does not preclude a hemispheric model…I ask, could you please walk uneducated me through the mechanics of exactly how this scenario might actually work in a real life ancient American setting? Population defussionest could really use an education.

While I agree that Book of Mormon geography is not doctrine…it does go to the core issue of Book of Mormon reality as an actual historical record rather than the musing of a gifted upstate New York farm boy. If we can’t place its setting somewhere…who’s to say it happened anywhere? And while you view my interest in this subject as idle curiosity wanting to be satisfied which could be resolved by expending effort…I assure you…I have expended thousands of hours in such an investigation…without the promised resolution…well at least not the one promised.

To Robert F. Smith…

I both appreciate the tone of your post and agree with much of what you shared. While I agree that introduction pages are not doctrinal…they do reflect official church positions. The word change merely reflected a previous church position that needed to be updated to reflect reality.

With respect to limited geography etiology…while I’ll allow for your explanation as perhaps one of several motivating influences that affected this change…it also coincided with other factors that were also impacting a needed change in prevailing view of the geographical settings for the Book of Mormon, namely the emergence of genetic studies first started in the early 1980’s that failed to support the hemispheric model.

You make mention of the Olmec cultures so I feel the need to point out that neither this nor any other Mesoamerican civilization can be connected with any Book of Mormon civilization. And yes finding connections between the Olmec’s and any claimed Book of Mormon civilizations is coincidental…but I’ll look forward to Sorenson’s book and the peer review of any claims he may make to the contrary.

ErayR…you ask…” is it comprehension skills or is it deliberate” I am deliberately attempting to engage in an honest discussion but find many of the offered solutions incomprehensible in light of reality.

While at times I feel that I am banging my head against a brick wall or have entered an alternative universe…I do appreciate the journey…

Edited September 21, 2011 by Craig Paxton

[Pahoran]

We are in agreement…principle ancestors does not mean “only” and I hope we can also agree that in the end it doesn’t really matter how you or I define the word “Principle” as it is used in Bruce R McConkie’s 1981 introduction page…it matters what Bruce R. McConkie wanted the use of this word to mean when he used it in the introduction. So let’s turn to his own words and see who he viewed as the principle ancestors of the Lamanites.

The word, incidentally, is "principal," not "principle."

In his book “Mormon Doctrine” under the heading of “American Indians” McConkie states:

Pardon me for interrupting your prooftexting, but which edition?

It is quite clear that Bruce R. McConkie held a belief that the Native American population was principally, chiefly, dominantly, majorily descended from Lehi’s original immigration party sprinkled with other lessor bloodlines throughout the years.

Which is interesting, if true, but not very important.

That the church has accepted reality and changed its view of Native Americans being principally descended from Lehi is reflected in its change to McConkies Introduction with the words “Among”. Why is this even being debated? Why is it even being questioned that the church once held this belief and taught it and has changed its position to reflect reality?

For the rather good and sufficient reason that the assertion that "the church once held this belief," to the extent that it asserts anything quantifiable at all, is clearly wrong.

People held such a belief; the Church did not. Let us be clear on that point, please.

Irrespective of its source...it is descriptive of a phenomenom within Mormonism wherein opposing views regarding the origins of Native American populations are held within the same church, stake, ward, quorum or family unit.

What? You mean all of us mindless, lockstep morgbots aren't all merely chanting the same mantra in unison?

Who'da thunk it?

But no, the blisteringly false "Chapel Mormon/Internet Mormon" dichotomy is not merely "descriptive of" the rather un-startling fact that different people have different views on various subjects. It is a carefully crafted falsehood, developed in support of a polemical agenda, and has never at any time been used in good faith by anyone.

Regarding the interpretation of the Book of Mormon geography...you forget that an entire generation also read the Book of Mormon and came up with an entirely different understanding of Book of Mormon geography by also reading its pages...(again that is why there is no definitive answer to this question)...

And how many of them actually made any effort to calculate the distances being travelled according to the internal evidence of the text?

That is the key question, Craig.

it was only after reality didn't support that interpretation that informed Mormon's began to reinterpreted their view of Book of Mormon geography.

Another demonstrable falsehood.

But thank you for that expression of your belief. It's nice to know that, in a day when scepticism is so widespread, people can still cling to unprovable assertions purely upon faith.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Yes silly me, I am the one who thought it ridiculous for Lehi to be related to the 60 million inhabitants living up and down the American continents...oh and you conveniently left out the Islands of the Pacific (which I’m guessing, you live upon)

You guess right. But Pacific Islanders are numerically insignificant compared to NA's; that's the only reason I'm not going to chase that rabbit, however much you'd like me to.

If you are at all familiar with human population diffusion studies throughout the world, yes all present day humans do have common ancestors originating out of Africa. And Native American populations have common ancestors coming out of Asia. And the Pacific Polynesian populations have common ancestors coming out of South East Asia. There is NO genetic connection or otherwise connection between Island Polynesians and Native Americas...at least not within the last 25,000 years.

He said, with a sigh of relief.

But that is another discussion for another thread.

Expanding ancient populations migrated OUT from original populations for many reasons but primarily in search of viable food sources. In other words they followed food. There is nothing in the historical record to suggest that a small seemingly invisible immigrant party from a foreign land spread its DNA throughout a native population from the tip of South America to the tip of North America to the Islands of the Pacific…nothing, nadda, niltch. Equally there is no evidence of ANY ancient population seeding the entire population of a continental population. Take Rome as an example...a civilization I hope the 2 of us can agree actually existed, even with its vast expansion throughout Europe, Asia Minor and parts of Africa...it still failed to spread Roman DNA throughout its own continent let alone another one and this is fact even though it involved 100's of thousands of sexualy active Roman soldiers,merchants and politicians over thousands of years. In fact, Rome left no apparent genetic footprint on Europe beyond its own boarders.

Do you even realise how spectacularly you have shot your own argument in the foot with that? Of course those Romans, living all over Europe for hundreds of years, left descendants behind. All you've done is demonstrate how woefully inadequate the tools of population genetics presently are to detect their traces.

How then would an almost invisable party of less than 250 do so to a population numbering in the 100's of thousands spread over thousands of miles? Well we know the answer to that question...it didn't.

Your un-testimony is noted, for what it is worth. I believe you summed it up in the last three words of the third sentence of the paragraph above.

And think of the mechanics of doing so if it had. How exactly does an immigrant arriving in, shall we say, 600 BCE Central America become a forefather of all of the modern day native population? For this to be true there would have actually have been mating between far flung native populations spanning all kinds of geographical obstacles.

The Book of Mormon details population movements both overland and along the coast by ship.

How and when did this take place? I’ll accept current native populations having been defused from their common Asian forefathers…since we know of the source from wince they sprang…but to suggest that an immigrant population somehow infected this native population is a pretty strong claim…other than the claims made in the Book of Mormon there just isn’t any supporting evidence.

Well, none that you'll accept, anyhow.

Being myself a decedent of Charlemagne AKA Karl der Grosse, as are most individual with Western European ancestry, I understand your flawed premise by assuming that because Charlemagne had millions of descendants surely Lehi could have also. That’s a huge leap in logic…without any supporting evidence.

Your dismissive rhetoric is noted.

But what you fail to take into account is HOW Charlemagne had so many descendants including me. #1 he was an actual historical figure.

If you can only win your argument by smuggling your own assumptions into it, then you've lost already. The Book of Mormon asserts that Lehi was likewise an actual historical figure.

#2 He was royal and royalty spread their DNA through intermarriage across great geographical distances for political purposes.

Two of Lehi's sons founded royal dynasties and at least one founded a sacerdotal line.

#3 He had multiple wives and children which also increased his descendants.

Lehi had six sons and an unknown number of daughters.

#4 Western Europe was a very static population allowing for more intermarriage among the closed populations.

Which, if you try thinking instead of merely assuming, actually limits Charlemagne's reproductive potential.

#5 What you also see among Charlemagne’s descendants is that they are primarily limited to Western Europe…or in other words you don’t see his descendants spread (in the ancient world) throughout far flung geographical populations and across distant oceans.

And what you see among Lehi's descendants is that they are primarily limited to the American landmass and a few small islands easily reached by boat, following favourable ocean currents.

Taking the cumal with them.

ETA: Incidentally, Craig: has your descent from Charlemagne been established by DNA testing?

Can it be?

Think about it.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited September 22, 2011 by Pahoran

[Robert F. Smith]

My attempt to set the record straight as I see it:

To Robert F. Smith…

I both appreciate the tone of your post and agree with much of what you shared. While I agree that introduction pages are not doctrinal…they do reflect official church positions. The word change merely reflected a previous church position that needed to be updated to reflect reality.

Although even some apologists claim that such introductory comments reflect official church positions, I have never seen anything which would lead me to consider that a fact. Most of these sorts of claims are made by partisans of one geographical position or another, rather than a scientific and logical examination of the evidence. So I can see why any reader might be confused and misled.

With respect to limited geography etiology…while I’ll allow for your explanation as perhaps one of several motivating influences that affected this change…it also coincided with other factors that were also impacting a needed change in prevailing view of the geographical settings for the Book of Mormon, namely the emergence of genetic studies first started in the early 1980’s that failed to support the hemispheric model.

The problem is that Sorenson had already written his book before the 1980s (just took awhile to get it published), and had even been lecturing at firesides on the limited geography of the BofM back in the early 1950s while a graduate student. Many of us took part in the 1975 BofM Geography Paper exchange in which we critiqued various points of view. The major issues were settled long before many of these other supposed reasons came into consideration.

You make mention of the Olmec cultures so I feel the need to point out that neither this nor any other Mesoamerican civilization can be connected with any Book of Mormon civilization. And yes finding connections between the Olmec’s and any claimed Book of Mormon civilizations is coincidental…but I’ll look forward to Sorenson’s book and the peer review of any claims he may make to the contrary.

Perhaps you could present your own reactions to it as well -- right here on MDDB.

[Craig Paxton]

The word, incidentally, is "principal," not "principle."

What would I do without your spell checking Skills?

Pardon me for interrupting your prooftexting, but which edition?

Mine is unfortunately not the fun one, a first edition; it is the 1966 second edition

Which is interesting, if true, but not very important.

You're good with your jedi hand wave...."these are not the droids your looking for" techniques...

For the rather good and sufficient reason that the assertion that "the church once held this belief," to the extent that it asserts anything quantifiable at all, is clearly wrong.

People held such a belief; the Church did not. Let us be clear on that point, please.

church = people...people =church...or what ever you ned to do to dice it up to make it work for you...the fact remains that correlated church material once taught a hemispheric model for Book of Mormon setting...and church authorites preached it over the pulput...

What? You mean all of us mindless, lockstep morgbots aren't all merely chanting the same mantra in unison?

Who'da thunk it?

But no, the blisteringly false "Chapel Mormon/Internet Mormon" dichotomy is not merely "descriptive of" the rather un-startling fact that different people have different views on various subjects. It is a carefully crafted falsehood, developed in support of a polemical agenda, and has never at any time been used in good faith by anyone.

Whether you accept it or not...it exsists

And how many of them actually made any effort to calculate the distances being travelled according to the internal evidence of the text?

That is the key question, Craig.

It never came into question until reality came in conflict with the prefailing belief.

Another demonstrable falsehood.

We're going to have to agree to disagree...I don't know you nor your histroy with the church...I don't know your age or how long you've been a church member...but I can only surmise that you are speaking from a position of ignorance due to not having been around during the timeperiod prior to the 1980's...to call something that happened a demonstrable falsehood...speaks to that ignorance.

But thank you for that expression of your belief. It's nice to know that, in a day when scepticism is so widespread, people can still cling to unprovable assertions purely upon faith.

Wow...I couldn't have said it better...

[Craig Paxton]

You guess right. But Pacific Islanders are numerically insignificant compared to NA's; that's the only reason I'm not going to chase that rabbit, however much you'd like me to.

He said, with a sigh of relief.

But that is another discussion for another thread.

Do you even realise how spectacularly you have shot your own argument in the foot with that? Of course those Romans, living all over Europe for hundreds of years, left descendants behind. All you've done is demonstrate how woefully inadequate the tools of population genetics presently are to detect their traces.

Your un-testimony is noted, for what it is worth. I believe you summed it up in the last three words of the third sentence of the paragraph above.

The Book of Mormon details population movements both overland and along the coast by ship.

Well, none that you'll accept, anyhow.

Your dismissive rhetoric is noted.

If you can only win your argument by smuggling your own assumptions into it, then you've lost already. The Book of Mormon asserts that Lehi was likewise an actual historical figure.

Two of Lehi's sons founded royal dynasties and at least one founded a sacerdotal line.

Lehi had six sons and an unknown number of daughters.

Which, if you try thinking instead of merely assuming, actually limits Charlemagne's reproductive potential.

And what you see among Lehi's descendants is that they are primarily limited to the American landmass and a few small islands easily reached by boat, following favourable ocean currents.

Taking the cumal with them.

ETA: Incidentally, Craig: has your descent from Charlemagne been established by DNA testing?

Can it be?

Think about it.

Regards,

Pahoran

Thanks for the joust....but I think we've reached an impass...no real point to taking it further...we've both made our points...and while I have enjoyed many of your arguments and think some need further consideration...I haven't moved you...nor have you convinced me...but I have enjoyed the discussion.

Cheers Mate,

Craig

[Robert F. Smith]

...the fact remains that correlated church material once taught a hemispheric model for Book of Mormon setting...

Just to be clear, LDS Church Correlation did not have responsibility for all published Church materials until 1972, and Professor Dan Ludlow was then brought in as the first head of the Correlation Dept. Although there had been a Correlation Committee since 1908, it was not thoroughgoing or systematic. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthood_Correlation_Program .

In any case, however, I know of no effort to create Church material designed to teach a hemispheric model of Book of Mormon geography, though individual, uncorrelated authors did put forward their own private points of view in various venues -- possibly even including footnotes in editions of Scripture. Those notes always constituted the individual views of their authors, not an official position of the Church.

[dougtheavenger]

To me, God seems to have presented the Book of Mormon as a challenge. He seems to be saying to every anti-Mormon or skeptic on Earth, "take their best shot". In the past 180 years they have failed to refute it. By comparison, Darwin's theory of evolution has been shattered and reconstructed more than once. The latest version of Evolution depends upon chromosome fusion which was never envisioned by Darwin.

Edited September 25, 2011 by dougtheavenger

[Pahoran]

You're good with your jedi hand wave...."these are not the droids your looking for" techniques...

More dismissive rhetoric. Which signals that you are unable to show why Bruce R's opinion on any given subject is actually important in the scheme of things.

church = people...people =church...or what ever you ned to do to dice it up to make it work for you...the fact remains that correlated church material once taught a hemispheric model for Book of Mormon setting...and church authorites preached it over the pulput...

That is not a "fact" at all. It is an unsupportable leap.

The proposition that the Book of Mormon Lamanites were the principal ancestors of modern Native Americans does not entail a hemispheric geography.

Whether you accept it or not...it exsists

Whether you admit it or not, the "internet Mormon/Chapel Mormon" dichotomy is a deliberate fabrication.

It never came into question until reality came in conflict with the prefailing belief.

You are immensely proud of your pervasive lack of information, aren't you? The real "reality" that you refuse to admit into your theorising is that limited/local colonisation hypotheses regarding the Lehi colony have been seriously considered in LDS academic circles since well before Watson and Crick, and have in fact been the accepted view for at least half a century. The notion that they represent some kind of retreat in the face of science is a romantic one, but it relies upon the most resolute and determined ignorance of the facts.

We're going to have to agree to disagree...I don't know you nor your histroy with the church...I don't know your age or how long you've been a church member...but I can only surmise that you are speaking from a position of ignorance due to not having been around during the timeperiod prior to the 1980's...to call something that happened a demonstrable falsehood...speaks to that ignorance.

Since you asked, I served my mission in the 1970's. In Australia.

Have you ever read Hugh Nibley's An Approach to the Book of Mormon? It was published in the middle of the 20th Century. It was also used as a teaching manual for Melchizedek Priesthood quorums. And it takes a limited Book of Mormon geography for granted.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

Since you asked, I served my mission in the 1970's. In Australia.

Have you ever read Hugh Nibley's An Approach to the Book of Mormon? It was published in the middle of the 20th Century. It was also used as a teaching manual for Melchizedek Priesthood quorums. And it takes a limited Book of Mormon geography for granted.

Born in the 50s myself, in CA, was taught the limited geography pretty much as soon as the hemispheric one, the idea combining the two was that Lamanites were spread among the others in the hemisphere in the centuries after the end of the Nephites (besides Hagoth's people) and the only thing discussed for this reason was the time involved for traveling, later in my college years at BYU in the 70s I heard about it being required by the population numbers. The challenges I heard at that time were the same as they always had been from the beginning of the Church.

When DNA was added to the list, the response was 'that ignores what has already been discussed as an option...a small group entering a larger population, etc', not any new ideas being applied.

Nibley's book was on my parents' bookshelf. I read it quite young as I worked my way through their library, didn't process all of it until I got to college and started taking the BoM seriously as a study (always preferred OT and PoGP growing up, spent my time reading stuff on that instead).

Edited September 25, 2011 by calmoriah

[cdowis]

What would I do without your spell checking Skills?

What you really need is a dictionary. Do you know what "principal" means? hint: The Lamanites were the preeminent/ distinguished/ leading ancestors of the American Indians.

Happy to help you out with your language skills. Every antimormon needs a good dictionary.

Edited September 25, 2011 by cdowis

[Craig Paxton]

Ok I admit it...you almost had me convinced I was the one who has been living in some Bizarre-O-World, Alternative Universe...but then I ran across this gem of an Ensign article by none other than apostle in waiting Jeffery R Holland....and I almost feel vindicated. Apology anyone?

http://lds.org/ensig...d-land?lang=eng

This is a classic example of the kind of tripe that was being taught me as a young man...full of errors, misunderstands and just plain ignorant of reality.

I think this pretty much confirms what I was saying...during the pre-80's period, the hemispheric model was commonly taught. I have now presented 2 Ensign articles...one by Spencer W. Kimball and now a second by current GA, Jeffery R Holland, that confirm the prevailing view of the church back then...I have yet to see even 1 Ensign article written by a GA, that supports a limited geography prior to the 1980...let alone any recent Ensign articles...it just doesn't exist...or if it does I can't find it on lds.org.

Holland's article gives some insight into the prevailing views taught in church during this particular time...and YES the church has changed its position and moved away from these very ignorant unsupportable views...I would also hope that Holland has even changed his views (but I can't confirm that). Reality has forced the hand of the church to change its view or look even more out of touch with reality than it usually does. Can you even imagine Holland delivering this talk today? Well I could only hope...

Edited October 7, 2011 by Craig Paxton

[mfbukowski]

Yes, we even use electric lights in the church now, and only rarely speak with megaphones in conference. Blacks have the Priesthood and we don't practice polygamy any more.

Notice that this talk is from 1976, even before Blacks could have the priesthood. That's 35 years. How old are you?

Have your ideas changed any in the last 35 years?

Golly jeepers, we even have a website, and oppose gay marriage.

We didn't used to oppose gay marriage either, because the whole notion didn't even exist.

We keep up with the times.

I suppose we could start a thread on Blacks and the Priesthood, but guess what- that's old news

And this is supposed to prove what?

Edited October 7, 2011 by mfbukowski

[altersteve]

Elder Oaks believes in a limited geographic model, doesn't he?

[KevinG]

And this is supposed to prove what?

Mormons either learn or they leave.

[mfbukowski]

Mormons either learn or they leave.

This ongoing revelation stuff is sure hard for fundamentalists, isn't it?

[Craig Paxton]

This ongoing revelation stuff is sure hard for fundamentalists, isn't it?

Sorry mfbukowski...its a long thread so I don't expect you to be up on all thats been discussed here....but thanks for also making my point. The church has changed its position on Book of Mormon Geography. I've now referrenced both Kimball and Holland to show that in the past the hemisheric model was widely taught throughout the church. The church now distances itsself from this unsupportable model. It's changed. Earlier in this thread there were some who questioned that anything has changed or that the hemispheric model was widely taught...anyway thanks for seconding my point....well in a backward manner...yeah things change and have changed...thanks...gald to see someone admit it.

[Storm Rider]

Sorry mfbukowski...its a long thread so I don't expect you to be up on all thats been discussed here....but thanks for also making my point. The church has changed its position on Book of Mormon Geography. I've now referenced both Kimball and Holland to show that in the past the hemispheric model was widely taught throughout the church. The church now distances itself from this unsupportable model. It's changed. Earlier in this thread there were some who questioned that anything has changed or that the hemispheric model was widely taught...anyway thanks for seconding my point....well in a backward manner...yeah things change and have changed...thanks...gald to see someone admit it.

We learn line upon line....I think you do also. Would you like to discuss how much your doctrines have changed over time? Or how about the doctrines of Christianity as a whole? This is what annoys; I will use a standard for you, but we cannot use the same standard for ourselves because doing so condemns us to the same fate we seek for you.

I think they call it hypocrisy; what would you call it?

Edited October 10, 2011 by Storm Rider