Lamanite Identities

[Cobalt-70]

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.

Putting aside the issue of all of us being descendants of Adam (which is proven incorrect by genetic research, which has identified male ancestors going back at least 142,000 years), I can get behind the idea that it is through the shed blood of Jesus (a literal Israelite, and the Christian culmination of the Abrahamic covenant) that we become part of the metaphorical blood of Israel, and even a metaphorical member of one of the twelve tribes of Israel.

None of this has anything to do with Lehi, however, except that Lehi was described as a literal descendant of Joseph. If we want to say that Native Americans (genetically Asian) are adopted into the metaphorical posterity of the fictional man Lehi, we could say that, too. But the passage in question does not say that the righteous gentiles are so adopted. The gentiles are only metaphorically adopted into the broader house of Israel and its twelve tribes.

Edited October 29, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Bikeemikey]

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.

The scripture we have talks about the covenant those people knew about, not necessarily all possible covenants that were made.

We are also told of other sheep not of this fold and other scriptural records that do not currently have.

Exclusivity of all possible covenants Abraham is not necessary for the gospel to work.

[Deardorff]

For a group supposedly taught to embrace All Truth, the L-dS people spend a lot of time trying to ignore it.

Scientific Truth is truth just as Religious Truth is truth. Both agree on some things and not on others. Whatever ends up being reality and actual Truth, from whatever source - is what to embrace. This no matter what pre-conceived or believed ideas one may have.

Science is always right because Science admits the possibility of change and seeks to find it and test it. If a theory or teaching does not hold up to independent testing, it is not Truth. No matter how much faith one has the Reality of Truth does not change. DNA. Continental Drift. Confusion of Languages. All are legitimate questions Science and answer if given time and information to test.

Religion should not be at odds with this but too many I meet in Religious circles are filled with "my mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts" or "When you have Faith, Truth does not matter".

A God of Laws must be sitting back and laughing at what passes for belief in most churches on Earth these days.

[volgadon]

Science is always right because Science admits the possibility of change and seeks to find it and test it.

That sort of comment borders on the idiotic. Science is often wrong, that is why it is always right!

[CV75]

Putting aside the issue of all of us being descendants of Adam (which is proven incorrect by genetic research, which has identified male ancestors going back at least 142,000 years), I can get behind the idea that it is through the shed blood of Jesus (a literal Israelite, and the Christian culmination of the Abrahamic covenant) that we become part of the metaphorical blood of Israel, and even a metaphorical member of one of the twelve tribes of Israel.

None of this has anything to do with Lehi, however, except that Lehi was described as a literal descendant of Joseph. If we want to say that Native Americans (genetically Asian) are adopted into the metaphorical posterity of the fictional man Lehi, we could say that, too. But the passage in question does not say that the righteous gentiles are so adopted. The gentiles are only metaphorically adopted into the broader house of Israel and its twelve tribes.

But descendancy can take many forms, have validity independent of scientific analysis, and still be “literal." Things of the spirit are more real than things of the flesh, which is why we are raised as spiritual bodies, and why the one blood of Adam, Israel, Lehi, etc. are hardly metaphorical. I take the same exception to the phrase “only metaphorically adopted” – I mean, what’s the use if it it’s not as real as what is promised?

So Lehi is a literal descendant of Joseph (Manasseh), and I think any Asiatic connection with Native Americans is a gentile connection that is literally brought into the family of Lehi. For example, Jaredites are “gentile” yet carried the covenant prior to the formation of the twelve tribes of Israel, and after their apostasy dovetailed into the Lehite population, whether as keepers, rejecters, or heirs of the covenant.

The passage in question (1 Nephi 14:1-2) says, “…if the Gentiles [Asians, Europeans, Africans and others that are brought by the hand of the Lord to this land—2 Nephi 1:6] shall hearken unto the Lamb of God …they shall be numbered among the seed of thy father [which is likely Lehi, but could also be Manasseh or Joseph] …upon the promised land forever…” This land would include anywhere that the Lehites, Asians, Europeans, Africans and others went that has a role in the restoration and building up of Zion on the American continents. If one wishes to wax scientific, these masses are only the surfaces of two much larger plates that cover many other masses and isles of the sea and, which are contiguous with other plates that cover the areas Hagoth and many others ended up. Hence the large plates of Lehi.

[CV75]

The scripture we have talks about the covenant those people knew about, not necessarily all possible covenants that were made.

We are also told of other sheep not of this fold and other scriptural records that do not currently have.

Exclusivity of all possible covenants Abraham is not necessary for the gospel to work.

I'm not sure I understand your syntax here, but here's a try: since the other sheep are of Israel, they are also of Abraham.

[Bikeemikey]

I'm not sure I understand your syntax here, but here's a try: since the other sheep are of Israel, they are also of Abraham.

The opposite... other sheep may or may not be of israel; sure some were, that doesn't mean all were.

The OT and by default the BOM are narratives within a covenant tradition that was closed to the idea of other outside covenants. It may not be the case that there are no other covenants like abrahams currently in effect. We simply have not found the texts talking about them yet. We have no reason to think texts regarding the Abrahamic covenant would talk about other covenants of the time, in fact, the tradition it self has every reason to either avoid discussion of other covenants or claim other covenants were "of the devil".

What i meant to write in my original post was:

The gospel is not reliant or contingent on one exclusive covenant with Abraham. Abraham's exaltation is however reliant and contingent on all covenants he has made with God.

Edited October 30, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[CV75]

The gospel is not reliant or contingent on one exclusive covenant with Abraham. Abraham's exaltation is however reliant and contingent on all covenants he has made with God.

Be that as it may (gospel covenants are gospel covenants--just name your patriarch), I don't see how that counters the covenants the Book of Mormon talks about.

[Bikeemikey]

Be that as it may (gospel covenants are gospel covenants--just name your patriarch), I don't see how that counters the covenants the Book of Mormon talks about.

It doesn't. But if we find a book of scripture in 10 years time, and it is the story of a group that lived in Mongolia, they had a Patriarch (named Bob - covenant called the Bobic covenant) who made a covenant with God, Christ visited them after the Nehphites, we have all of this in a book and they know nothing of the Abrahamic covenant. Should we as LDS now be adopted into both the Abrahamic Covenant and the Bobic covenant?

[mfbukowski]

Putting aside the issue of all of us being descendants of Adam (which is proven incorrect by genetic research, which has identified male ancestors going back at least 142,000 years), I can get behind the idea that it is through the shed blood of Jesus (a literal Israelite, and the Christian culmination of the Abrahamic covenant) that we become part of the metaphorical blood of Israel, and even a metaphorical member of one of the twelve tribes of Israel.

None of this has anything to do with Lehi, however, except that Lehi was described as a literal descendant of Joseph. If we want to say that Native Americans (genetically Asian) are adopted into the metaphorical posterity of the fictional man Lehi, we could say that, too. But the passage in question does not say that the righteous gentiles are so adopted. The gentiles are only metaphorically adopted into the broader house of Israel and its twelve tribes.

I haven't a clue what you are talking about here. I am amazed that you would actually think that metaphorical science has "proven" when exactly Adam did NOT exist.

Edited October 31, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

That sort of comment borders on the idiotic. Science is often wrong, that is why it is always right!

I didn't know where to begin with that post. For the first time in history, the man with the big mouth was dumbstruck.

[CV75]

It doesn't. But if we find a book of scripture in 10 years time, and it is the story of a group that lived in Mongolia, they had a Patriarch (named Bob - covenant called the Bobic covenant) who made a covenant with God, Christ visited them after the Nehphites, we have all of this in a book and they know nothing of the Abrahamic covenant. Should we as LDS now be adopted into both the Abrahamic Covenant and the Bobic covenant?

What's in a name? Both would fall under the umbrella of the new and everlasting covenant in its complete form as restored and revealed in the dispensation of the fulness of times. Both would tied back to Adam and the covenants of previous dispenstions and also forward to the contnuation of the seeds. But given the Abrahamic covenant's unique role in the coming forth of Christ into the world, I don't see Bob's covenant superceeding it.

[Cobalt-70]

I haven't a clue what you are talking about here. I am amazed that you would actually think that metaphorical science has "proven" when exactly Adam did NOT exist.

Genetic studies show that humans alive today do not share the same male ancestor who has lived within the last 140,000 years. So our Adam--the man-god that Brigham Young worshiped--is certainly not our literal genetic ancestor. I'm not saying that the myth of Adam and Eve does not have some basis in the story of a real man, maybe even a man named "Adam." But if he existed, his is at most the genetic ancestor of only a tiny fraction of the human species.

[mfbukowski]

Genetic studies show that humans alive today do not share the same male ancestor who has lived within the last 140,000 years. So our Adam--the man-god that Brigham Young worshiped--is certainly not our literal genetic ancestor. I'm not saying that the myth of Adam and Eve does not have some basis in the story of a real man, maybe even a man named "Adam." But if he existed, his is at most the genetic ancestor of only a tiny fraction of the human species.

If you think science can tell us anything about Adam you are wrong. You are barking up the wrong rabbit hole.

[Cobalt-70]

If you think science can tell us anything about Adam you are wrong. You are barking up the wrong rabbit hole.

Science can say who Adam is not. Biology tells us that Adam is not our literal genetic ancestor. To the extent that the myth of Adam says otherwise, then we have an example where mythology says one thing, and biology says something different. It's not that one is right and one is wrong--it's just that Adam, as the father of the human race, currently lives in the world of mythology, rather than the world of biology.

[mfbukowski]

Science can say who Adam is not. Biology tells us that Adam is not our literal genetic ancestor. To the extent that the myth of Adam says otherwise, then we have an example where mythology says one thing, and biology says something different. It's not that one is right and one is wrong--it's just that Adam, as the father of the human race, currently lives in the world of mythology, rather than the world of biology.

Unfortunately, both are myths and simply serve different purposes. Oh pardon me, "theories".

[mfbukowski]

Science can say who Adam is not.

Confused. Science only tells us what is, not what is not. How do you prove something does not exist?

[Bikeemikey]

Science can say who Adam is not. Biology tells us that Adam is not our literal genetic ancestor. To the extent that the myth of Adam says otherwise, then we have an example where mythology says one thing, and biology says something different. It's not that one is right and one is wrong--it's just that Adam, as the father of the human race, currently lives in the world of mythology, rather than the world of biology.

I really like the way you have expressed this.

Why does it matter where we come from in a biological sense?

[Bikeemikey]

Confused. Science only tells us what is, not what is not. How do you prove something does not exist?

1. If biological evidence is correct and (as a human race) we are not all biologically descended from one ancestor 6000 years ago, and,

2. If Adam was a person who lived 6000 years ago, then

3. We are not all biologically descended from Adam.

If we are all descended from one ancestor (Adam) then science can tell us "Adam" is not a man who lived 6000 years ago, instead he must be a man who lived at some earlier time.

In this sense science can tell us some parts of who the mythological entity Adam is - is not.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[mfbukowski]

1. If biological evidence is correct and (as a human race) we are not all biologically descended from one ancestor 6000 years ago, and,

2. If Adam was a person who lived 6000 years ago, then

3. We are not all biologically descended from Adam.

If we are all descended from one ancestor (Adam) then science can tell us "Adam" is not a man who lived 6000 years ago, instead he must be a man who lived at some earlier time.

In this sense science can tell us some parts of who the mythological entity Adam is - is not.

Please tell me if science can tell me that Jesus is the Christ.? How about genetic evidence that he is the Son of God?

You are being far too literal. My entire point is that the spiritual place of Adam and the spiritual place of Christ are the same kind of thing- neither have anything to do with science.

The only way I can know anything about either is through testimony. Science has nothing to do with either one.

[mfbukowski]

Why does it matter where we come from in a biological sense?

This is actually the entire point. It does not matter one iota.

[mfbukowski]

Science and Religion in a Nutshell

This is the simplest explanation of my view I can come up with:

All linguistic discourse is metaphor and symbols. We open up our mouths and make sounds or make squiggles on paper or pixels on a screen.

Squiggles and noises and pixels are not chairs tables planets or anything "real" - they are squiggles and noises which are symbols and signs.

They are metaphors.

Scientific squiggles and noises tell us about metaphors which humanity has seen useful for manipulating the world around us.

Religious squiggles and noises tell us about metaphors which humanity has seen useful for explaining what is important to us, what we should do, what to value, and what our place is in the world in which we all interact.

We each pick which sets of squiggles and metaphors from each category help us best to put together a world view which helps us make sense of all this world we each experience.

The idea that truth is a property of sentences and sentences are just ultimately interpretations of experience really strikes people the wrong way but I think the position is unassailable.

The only way of even discussing the problem is in language, which is subject to interpretation. There is nothing you can say to argue that in the final analysis we are not ultimately talking about words and each others interpretation of them, because the only way to make the argument is by expressing your interpretation of words. It is inescapable. The scientist ends up talking about and interpreting words and so does the theologian

Once you see human experience as one whole with no way to communicate it but language, then the objective and subjective become two sides of the same coin and inseparable, and just as valuable in their respective spheres. We cannot survive without both of them.

We all live in the subjective every minute of our lives, but if we do not acknowledge the limits of the objective we cannot survive.

Edited October 31, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Hogmeister]

Yes, but if I were a Native American or Polynesian, I would have a problem with any book that I believed was calling my ancestors "dark and loathsome"--and by extension, calling myself dark and loathsome because my skin color is exactly the same as my ancestors. For those who subscribe to this theory, what has really changed, to make modern Native Americans and Polynesians not dark and loathsome, whereas their ancestors were? I can't imagine anyone being thrilled to embrace this view and claim this darkness and loathsomeness as their own heritage.

Dark and loathsome have very little to do with skin color. I would argue it has nothing to do with it as others have before me. It has everything to do with traditions which can change with a single generation. That said, don't ever count on the early or current brethren having a perfect understanding of scripture. No need to set oneself up for that one. We should all try to do our best with the understanding we've received so far. To believe in perfect understanding in this life is just sure to set a big stumbling block in your path to further revelation. Perfect understanding in this life is just pure nonsense and critics (often religious at that, that should know all about failing to grasp scripture) waving this banner against our church and brethren can be ignored if you ask me. This said we should all strive to the best of our current ability and understanding at all times.

[Hogmeister]

Genetic studies show that humans alive today do not share the same male ancestor who has lived within the last 140,000 years. So our Adam--the man-god that Brigham Young worshiped--is certainly not our literal genetic ancestor. I'm not saying that the myth of Adam and Eve does not have some basis in the story of a real man, maybe even a man named "Adam." But if he existed, his is at most the genetic ancestor of only a tiny fraction of the human species.

You need to study Elden Watsons research, read the talks given by Brigham Young (will take some time no doubt) and top it off with some ancient religous texts.

[Hogmeister]

Genetic studies show that humans alive today do not share the same male ancestor who has lived within the last 140,000 years. So our Adam--the man-god that Brigham Young worshiped--is certainly not our literal genetic ancestor. I'm not saying that the myth of Adam and Eve does not have some basis in the story of a real man, maybe even a man named "Adam." But if he existed, his is at most the genetic ancestor of only a tiny fraction of the human species.

Critics interpretation of BYs "Adam-God theory" is basically a much beloved straw man based on a rare few contradictory passages as found in journal of discourses while conveniently ignoring the vast body of talks given by Brigham that is very much in line with today's doctrine. Comparison with Wilford Woodruffs notes/journal entries from sermons in question will reveal the inadequacies in the reporting as incorporated in JD. It is also striking that we do not find this confusion in the days of Brigham Young. Brigham Young gave so many talks on the subject that there was no room for confusion in his day. The confusion is a later construct of our critics.