Lamanite Identities

[canard78]

I think it was more likely originally a result of the commonly believed hemispheric geography theory. With the more limited geographies becoming more popular, the concept that a man living 2000 or more years ago if he had children, would be a common ancestor of millions of people currently living, similar to the concept that pretty much all Europeans are descendants of Charlemagne even if there isn't some genetic marker that identifies them as such so there is no reason to change the belief that Lamanites (descendants of the Lehite party) are all over the Westren Hemisphere.

Just because an ancestor may not have contributed any identifiable genes to his descendants, it does no somehow mystically or scientifically cause him to cease being their ancestor or them his down the line children.

And with the tradition of migration firmly established among the Lehites, it should hardly be surprising if their descendants were found all over the place.

As far as labelling the descendants as Lamanites rather than Nephites, that likely comes from two ideas from the BoM itself, Nephi's prophecy that his descendants would be destroyed/absorbed into the Lamanites and Moroni's witness this was happening on his local level with no further information/revelation of believers that might have possibly identified themselves as Nehphites due to the tradition existing after Moroni's death, by which time Lamanites and Nephites had devolved into less of a lineage designation and more of a political one.

I agree that the Charlemagne principle is a good explanation of the non-DNA linked ancestors.

There's a very good article written by a British statistical modeller and genealogist. I like it because he appears to have no religious affiliation, makes no reference to Lehites (has probably never heard of them) but makes a very strong arguement for a shared ancestor with no genetic link.

If Lehi has one surviving descendent today, technically/statistically all living natives of N/S America are probably his descendents (with no need for a genetic link). Same goes for Hagoth's party.

http://humphrysfamilytree.com/ca.html

He says every person alive today has millions of ancestors and every person in history with one proven living descendent has millions more.

[Cobalt-70]

I would be pretty angry to suddenly wake up and find my skin a different color because I am now righteous. My whole identity would be taken away from me. I think that we can translate their whiteness to pureness. I think that in the book of mormon whiteand pure seem to mesh quite well.

I'm all for making that conceptual change. But not with the Book of Mormon language as it now stands. It just isn't credible that the existing language in the Book of Mormon has nothing to do with race or skin color. A non-credible argument that something isn't racist is more damaging than the racism itself, because then people think, rightly or wrongly, that we are not just racists, but liars.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[theplains]

Let’s say the Church’s definition allows that the term “Lehite/Lamanite descendant” applies to those found on the American continent(s), Oceania, and even eastward and elsewhere. That would be fulfillment of prophesy in 1 Nephi 13 and 14.

What is the church's definition of "Lamanites" in D&C 28:8-10 and 54:8?

Thanks,

Jim

[Calm]

Perhaps this may help give the context of that time: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1975/12/mingled-destinies-the-lamanites-and-the-latter-day-saints?lang=eng

More specific: http://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-30-40/section-32-the-first-mission-among-the-lamanites?lang=eng

http://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/sections-21-29/section-28-thou-shalt-not-command-him-who-is-at-thy-head?lang=eng

Edited October 26, 2012 by calmoriah

[brightpath]

The first shall be last and the last shall be first! We are living in the times of the Gentiles. The Gentiles run the world, the USA and yes even the Church. Part if the Gentiles rejecting the fullness of the gospel is rejecting who true Israel is. The Lamanites are the literal seed of Israel and will blossom as the rose one day by accepting the BofM, being led by the great Seer to come, building the New Jerusalem and gathering their brethren lost Israel. Lehi's seed are the Native Americans and Polynesians. We don't need scientific proof because it is an enemy to God. We need to have hope, faith, and listen to our past leaders who haven't caved into these bogus theories scientists have presented to us! The BofM is written to the Lamanites who are a remnant of the House if Israel. It is their history and future promises are extended to them. This is their lineage Native Americans, Polynesians>Lamanites>Lehi>Joseph>Israel.

[Kemara]

Scientific proof is an enemy to God? That's news to Talmage and Widtsoe.

[brightpath]

Memara, science is mans wisdom that can be used for good and bad hence we have the bogus debate about Asians being in the America's prior to Lehi's arrival.

[Kemara]

Memara, science is mans wisdom that can be used for good and bad hence we have the bogus debate about Asians being in the America's prior to Lehi's arrival.

So scientific proof is not the enemy of God then?

[CV75]

What is the church's definition of "Lamanites" in D&C 28:8-10 and 54:8?

I think those specifics, for the purposes of the revelations, still fall under the umbrella I identified.

[CV75]

Lehi's seed are the Native Americans and Polynesians.

1 Nephi 14:1-2 says that the Lord told Nephi that the Gentiles “shall be numbered among the seed of thy father [Lehi].” So these adopted Lehites may be among those across the Western Hemisphere and into Asia where the Church grew (and will grow) so quickly, since “blessed are they who shall seek to bring forth my Zion at that day (verse 37).”

[Closet Doubter]

... If you base your testimony on DNA or on evolution or no evolution or a literal flood or no flood or all Indians being descendants of Lehi, you are setting yourself up for a big misunderstanding.

I think we need to grow up a little and realize that neither the Book of Mormon nor the Bible are scientific texts. That doesn't mean they are not true nor that they are not the word of God nor that they are not "historical" whatever that is supposed to mean.

Others may have already commented on this as I am still reading the first page of comments but the problem here is that we have prophets who have stated unequivically that the flood was literal and covered the entire earth. The Book of Mormon with the story of the Jaredites is quite clear that the tower of Babel was a real event and at that time the languages of the earth were changed. If these things are not true then these books that are supposed to be true have included in them things that are not true. How then do we differentiate on which parts are true and which parts are myths. It also means that we can't count on the things the modern day prophets teach us because they have been shown to teach things that aren't true. We also can't count on personal revelation because the personal revelation to some people is that certain things are true and to others the personal revelation is the opposite. Truth is not subjective.

[mfbukowski]

Others may have already commented on this as I am still reading the first page of comments but the problem here is that we have prophets who have stated unequivically that the flood was literal and covered the entire earth. The Book of Mormon with the story of the Jaredites is quite clear that the tower of Babel was a real event and at that time the languages of the earth were changed. If these things are not true then these books that are supposed to be true have included in them things that are not true. How then do we differentiate on which parts are true and which parts are myths. It also means that we can't count on the things the modern day prophets teach us because they have been shown to teach things that aren't true. We also can't count on personal revelation because the personal revelation to some people is that certain things are true and to others the personal revelation is the opposite. Truth is not subjective.

This is based on what I think is a rather naive understanding of the nature of truth theories. I have written a lot on that stuff both here and on my blog.

I will try to answer your question by repeating my answer there, and simultaneously refer you to another thread where these things we discussed in length. There have been many such threads, especially one in early August which went for a zillion pages and in which I wrote a pretty good percentage of those pages. I will try to look it up and refer you to that thread

But for now, this will take you to another recent one in which this was discussed.

I don't know about simple.

In defending science I am not defending scientism. Science must operate on the basis of only what there is to observe. The reality of anything beyond this awaits the time that data constrains us to accept it. Accepting that which is beyond current science falls within the realm of faith/belief. I am comfortable with this or I wouldn't be LDS.

Naturalism has to be assumed by science since it deals with nature and admits of nothing more. So the question becomes how we can coordinate an intervening God into the picture that doesn't lead to contradictions with what we know. We can haphazardly ignore the facts of science and pretend they can be read another way. Or we can look for ways that admit the known evidence and what we believe from our theology.

For example if we obstinately grand stand for a global flood we ignore a boat load of contrary evidence and have to accept that God planted all the false evidence. If we say the flood was local perhaps we can remove the dichotomy. The evidence is overwhelming that the continents did not divide anytime in the recent past and so we are left wondering how it is that Noah could have preached to all the inhabitants of the planet. Or how it is that archaeology shows that civilizations existed post-flood the same as pre-flood without so much as a hiccup.

In resolving evolution lets look at the model similar to that of bcspace. If death refers to modern humans only, no death before the fall fits nicely as does Moses' statement that Adam was the son of God if this refers to his spirit. A bottleneck does not show up in the DNA data so Adam being the biological father of the human race either can't be true (Adam becomes the father of those who accept the covenant via adoption) or we accept a God that intervenes again in altering DNA. Certainly if long lives of ancient patriarchs is literal this becomes a necessity. Healing the blind, raising the dead, the rearrangement of the land at the death of Christ in the BOM(were horses mentioned in the BOM after this event? What does it do to archeological evidence for the BOM prior to the event?), answers to prayer - all are examples of an intervening God. We can't reasonably reject the notion of altering DNA out of hand. The question becomes whether the evidence and data will allow such a view without raising a self-contradiction as we find with a global flood. Otherwise we are reduced to accepting the view that God creates false data, or that by changing vocabulary the problems go away completely.

Here is the point. I don't disagree with a single thing you SAID, using words. Truth is in language, it's not out there somewhere in the world. Even if you want to see it in terms of correspondence (which I do not)- TRUTH is STILL in language- it is language which "corresponds" to reality.

Even on that view, either the sentences correspond to the reality or they don't. The truth is in the correspondence of the words- meaning the truth is still, ultimately, words. So any way you look at it, it's still all words.

BC space has his story in words, and scientists have their stories and we get to choose if they are compatible according to our stories. If they are not compatible, we modify our stories or the way we view the "data" until they ARE compatible at least to our personal satisfaction.

Even on this view:

Otherwise we are reduced to accepting the view that God creates false data, or that by changing vocabulary the problems go away completely

, there is no such thing as "false data"- data is a given which we all can see and look at and agree that there are certain lines on the whats-o-scope or certain lines in the strata which "show" the interpretation you give the various lines and squiggles. And everyone else interprets the lines and squiggle the same way because they "cohere" with other data etc.

Yet BC looks at the data and interprets it differently than most scientists, and his interpretation is carefully crafted so that it does not conflict with the data as he sees it.

The truth or falsity is not in the data- it is in whether or not it coheres with the story you want the data to say. If it doesn't fit, the story has to change or you decide the data was not right etc.

Now let me take the other side of this just for the sake of argument. We are here to "walk by faith" and not by certainty.

What would happen to the plan of salvation if suddenly new data emerged which totally reversed all know science and showed conclusively- that the universe sprang into existence exactly 6747 years ago.

Go with me here- it's science fiction- we have to suspend our usual beliefs for a moment. But what would happen to the plan of salvation?

It no longer takes any faith whatsoever to believe in the gospel. Everyone converts instantly- who wouldn't?

What happens to "walking by faith" and the whole test of the plan of salvation? Isn't this what Satan is said to have proposed??

To bring ALL of us back?

No faith, no gospel.

Now of course I do not believe that, but I can understand why people persist in thinking that way because they cling to literalism thinking that is the only option. If they give up their literalism, they think they give up their faith because that is the only way they can conceive it.

And some of those literalists are even guys like Dawkins. He's just reading his literalism out of another book besides the Bible.

So what if someone presents a view which says that in effect, as you said : "Otherwise we are reduced to accepting the view that God creates false data"?

Even in this scenario- the "falsity" was not in the "data"- it was our scientific interpretation of the data while we had that interpretation! We should have been looking at Genesis, and instead we threw it out because it mentioned God.

The new data- and its subsequent interpretation - would turn science on its head- it would mean that in effect, Genesis IS a science book and was speaking the exact literal truth. We just didn't have all the data, and the new data and its interpretation suddenly contradicted all established science and all the wacko fundamentalists were actually right.

Edited October 27, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Closet Doubter

This is not the one I was looking for but this thread will help I am sure.

After discussing what "Truth" is in my epistemology thread it seemed natural to want to discuss how we use the words "know" and "true" within our religion.

Edited October 27, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Lamanite]

Closet Doubter

This is not the one I was looking for but this thread will help I am sure.

Completely OT but had to say I had a good time tossing around ideas in that thread.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Cobalt-70]

1 Nephi 14:1-2 says that the Lord told Nephi that the Gentiles “shall be numbered among the seed of thy father [Lehi].” So these adopted Lehites may be among those across the Western Hemisphere and into Asia where the Church grew (and will grow) so quickly, since “blessed are they who shall seek to bring forth my Zion at that day (verse 37).”

When it says that the gentiles will be "numbered among" the Lehites, that doesn't necessarily mean that they will be Lehites. In the context of the verse, it just means that they will be counted with the Lehites and the Israelites as a blessed people upon the "promised land."

[telnetd]

1 Nephi 14:1-2 says that the Lord told Nephi that the Gentiles “shall be numbered among the seed of thy father [Lehi].” So these adopted Lehites may be among those across the Western Hemisphere and into Asia where the Church grew (and will grow) so quickly, since “blessed are they who shall seek to bring forth my Zion at that day (verse 37).”

How are the Lehites considered 'adopted'?

Gail

[CV75]

When it says that the gentiles will be "numbered among" the Lehites, that doesn't necessarily mean that they will be Lehites. In the context of the verse, it just means that they will be counted with the Lehites and the Israelites as a blessed people upon the "promised land."

That makes them Lehites, children of Lehi, Lehi's seed, etc. and they will be Lehites. Remember, “God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.” Same thing here. And God “hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth.” And “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

[Bikeemikey]

That makes them Lehites, children of Lehi, Lehi's seed, etc. and they will be Lehites. Remember, “God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.” Same thing here. And God “hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth.” And “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

Given that the Bible and Book of Mormon were written within (the following is deliberate hyperbole) ethnocentric/xenophobic (perhaps even overtly racist) societies, and the prophets creating these texts were members of those societies, it should not be a surprise to us to find large portions of the text devoted to their tradition/lineage. The whole texts are lineage specific.

The real question is whether or not we need to proscribe a religious imperative to xenophobic traditions embodied within these texts, or whether it would be better to simply understand them as part of the time frame and societal learning that was prevalent and appearing in the text as an off-shoot of culture, not because God actually is more concerned with one lineage or line over another.

Had the religious texts we use been recorded by non-Israelites then they would have been talking about the same lineage specific issues but instead of being Jews and Gentiles it would have been group a (self-affiliated culture) and what ever word group a used to mean gentile (other).

An interesting example of the irrelevancy of the Abrahamic Covenant (and thereby Israelite Ancestral lineage in general) is actually the Melchizedek Priesthood. This is the power of god, the authority by which we claim the restoration of the gospel. It is also named after Melchizedek, who was the king Abraham paid tithing to. I assume that Melchizedek had this priesthood (one of the reasons it was named after him). He was also not part of the Abrahamic Covenant (he was not a descendant of Abraham). The primary power of our Church predates the Abrahamic Covenant, is not named from within the Abrahamic tradition itself, people were able to be saved through the atonement pre-dating the abrahamic covenant so there is nothing essential about this covenant for those outside the lineage that would make adoption into the covenant necessary for salvation (except that the religious texts written from with in the tradition really want it to be that way).

Surely we can explore the idea that our religious obsession with the descendants of Abraham is more about the lineage of Christ and the fallacy of the observed (our religious texts are almost all from within one cultural tradition) rather than any real religious necessity about obsessing about the tribes of israel?

I hope one day we are able to find a the lost prophetic writings of Melchizedek, or other prophets from outside the Jewish tradition. I appreciate the culture of the Israelites, I appreciate the Old Testament and the New Testament and the way in which the Jewish tradition made both these books possible. However, we should not be surprised that religious scriptures from within a (fairly) closed cultural tradition talk about the salvation of that tradition and proposes a restorative self/other world dichotomy. This is normal and not unique. It is in the ancient Indian texts, it is also present in the Koran. It shows that prophets were also human and had a cultural commitment in addition to there religious one.

We gain nothing by linking people back to a certain BOM ancestral heritage. We are saved through Christ, not DNA.

Edited October 28, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[CV75]

We gain nothing by linking people back to a certain BOM ancestral heritage. We are saved through Christ, not DNA.

We do gain something, as long as it is gained properly and as intended by the Lord:

Certainly the Book of Mormon would reflect the mores of the culture within it was written, even in conveying spiritual principles. And of course it is best to understand the spiritual principles in the best spiritual light.

The Abrahamic Covenant is fulfilled when familial (“one blood”--so ultimately all mankind) and spiritual (“God-joined”--so ultimately all His children) relationships of God’s children are reconciled with Him. This is accomplished by spiritual rebirth, where we become children of Christ through His blood and covenant. Any subset of Adam, Abraham, and any of the tribes and even out own modern families are involved with a foreordained role to send forth the message and adopt all into the fold accomplishes this purpose.

That some are foreordained to be born through the blood and others through adoption is only germane to their earthly missions—both Jews and Gentiles have both blessing and cursing associated with how they carry them out.

Righteous family relationships, histories and traditions as recorded in scripture are testaments of the power of God to keep His children bound together in love and extend those relationships to others (see Enoch’s prayer). It is transmitted through books of remembrance, scripture, etc. as well as bloodlines; a family line is just as much a holy testament as a written scripture. These covenants with God begin locally and expand globally through both procreation and adoption.

[Cobalt-70]

That makes them Lehites, children of Lehi, Lehi's seed, etc. and they will be Lehites. Remember, “God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.” Same thing here. And God “hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth.” And “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

Of one metaphorical blood, yes. But that doesn't mean the blood of the Lehites. Becoming righteous might make you a metaphorical Israelite (hence, the lineage in your patriarchal blessing), but not a metaphorical Lehite.

[mfbukowski]

Of one metaphorical blood, yes. But that doesn't mean the blood of the Lehites. Becoming righteous might make you a metaphorical Israelite (hence, the lineage in your patriarchal blessing), but not a metaphorical Lehite.

Uh, these are metaphors. Even the word "blood" is a metaphor. I suspect all blood is red. And why precisely could one metaphor not be extended to another metaphor?

If Juliette was the "sun" could she also not be a "Lehite"? This makes no sense whatsoever.

[Cobalt-70]

Uh, these are metaphors. Even the word "blood" is a metaphor. I suspect all blood is red. And why precisely could one metaphor not be extended to another metaphor?

If Juliette was the "sun" could she also not be a "Lehite"? This makes no sense whatsoever.

Sure she could be a Lehite--if the Book of Mormon were written that way. But the Book of Mormon's references to Shakespeare were a little bit more subtle than that.

We're not talking about who could, in some hypothetical Book of Mormon, be considered metaphorical Lehites. We are constrained by the Book of Mormon we actually have, which says that the gentiles will be numbered among the Lehites (Lamanites, actually) as a blessed American people, not that they will become metaphorical or literal Lehites.

Edited October 29, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[ERayR]

Memara, science is mans wisdom that can be used for good and bad hence we have the bogus debate about Asians being in the America's prior to Lehi's arrival.

Not bogus. if nothing else the Jaredites were Asian. Read Nibley on the subject.

[CV75]

Of one metaphorical blood, yes. But that doesn't mean the blood of the Lehites. Becoming righteous might make you a metaphorical Israelite (hence, the lineage in your patriarchal blessing), but not a metaphorical Lehite.

All God's children are of one literal blood, as descendants of Adam. The scriptural records we use show that the covenant followed along Abraham's bloodline, into Israel and into the Lehites. A family line is just as much a testament of the covenant as the written word, so the metaphorical and literal blood become the same thing in Christ (as follows):

In some ways I believe, Abraham 2:11 refers to Christ Himself when it says that through, “thy seed after thee (that is to say, the literal seed, or the seed of the body)” [which is Christ] shall all the families of the earth be blessed, even with the blessings of the Gospel, which are the blessings of salvation, even of life eternal.” Of course this is accomplished by the shedding of His blood and our spiritual rebirth. When brought into the family of Lehi by covenant, there is literal blood involved (Christ's). Those who are brought into Lehi's line have just as much a foreordained right to the blessings of Christ's Priesthood as anyone else. The specific tribal assignment has to do with the particular role these children of Israel are to carry out.

[CV75]

Not bogus. if nothing else the Jaredites were Asian. Read Nibley on the subject.

To me this is interesting because they were a "gentile" nation with the priesthood, and I believe their descendants are mong those included among the children of Lehi.