Lamanite Identities

[Cobalt-70]

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

You can say a lot of things within the versatile language of science, including what is and what is not. For example, the null hypothesis is a test of what is not.

[Cobalt-70]

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

There is mythology within science, but scientific conclusions are not mythology.

[Bikeemikey]

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.

I don't disagree with the general idea of your post. Science and religion are not and can not provide the same evidence for people.

I disagree that the analogy between christs divinity and Adam (as the single father of the human family) are the same.

Science can tell us that if an entity (proclaiming to be the son of god) lived on earth, and called himself Jesus, then this was likely around 2000 years ago. Historical records etc would support this.

Likewise, if there is a man who existed and is considered the father of the whole human family then this likely would not have been 6000 years ago, but would have likely been much further in our genetic history.

Both claims are the realm of science as both are claims based on the evidence available (even if such evidence is limited).

Science can not tell us about the divinity of either Christ or Adam, that is a realm of religion. Science can however help us understand certain non-divine components of their existence.

As for science using DNA to prove Christ the son of god. That is an interesting question. What would christs DNA look like if we had it - I would say that christs DNA may very well yield some interesting data if studies by scientists - not a claim of divinity, but maybe something else. Your usage often question however seems more red herring than real inquiry.

Edited November 1, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[mfbukowski]

Likewise, if there is a man who existed and is considered the father of the whole human family then this likely would not have been 6000 years ago, but would have likely been much further in our genetic history.

I would recommend that you reflect on why it is that we are instructed that each of us should "consider ourselves as if we are Adam and Eve".

I would also recommend that you look into the meaning of the word "Adam" and come up with your own conclusions about this.

I can tell you this much: the answers to these questions have nothing to do with science and if and when Adam lived.

I would also recommend that you consider why it is said that we are all Children of God. That would make you a son of God and it has nothing to do with your genetics.

Edited November 1, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Bikeemikey]

I would recommend that you reflect on why it is that we are instructed that each of us should "consider ourselves as if we are Adam and Eve".

I would also recommend that you look into the meaning of the word "Adam" and come up with your own conclusions about this.

I can tell you this much: the answers to these questions have nothing to do with science and if and when Adam lived.

I would also recommend that you consider why it is said that we are all Children of God. That would make you a son of God and it has nothing to do with your genetics.

I tend to find a conversation more productive when the other participants share with me their insights from their experience and pondering. It is certainly more productive than being recommended to go and think about something that almost every participant on the board is already thinking about.

Do you think that Adam is a real entity that existed 6000 years ago and is the origin of all humanity?

Do you think that science can provide us important information about the real context of divine entities with out being in conflict with the religious understanding that we also need to develop about these same divine entires?

Edited November 1, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[mfbukowski]

Do you think that Adam is a real entity that existed 6000 years ago and is the origin of all humanity?

Do you think that science can provide us important information about the real context of divine entities with out being in conflict with the religious understanding that we also need to develop about these same divine entires?

I think he was a real person who lived sometime in the past and was the origin of religion and religious language as we know it. Anything else belongs to science and is unknowable in a religious context. But unknowable does not mean it is not true- I believe it could well be the case, but is unnecessary for our salvation to know that

I think that religion and science are two different linguistic contexts talking about different things, perhaps as an analogy, as if science is talking about fixing cars and religion is talking about why we buy cars.

Why questions have little to do with how questions in these contexts. Why there is an earth in the first place is an entirely different question than how it was made.

So it is not that science and religion are compatible or incompatible- they are talking about different things.

It's like asking you right now, "Would you care for some cheese?"

[Bikeemikey]

I think he was a real person who lived sometime in the past and was the origin of religion and religious language as we know it. Anything else belongs to science and is unknowable in a religious context. But unknowable does not mean it is not true- I believe it could well be the case, but is unnecessary for our salvation to know that

I think that religion and science are two different linguistic contexts talking about different things, perhaps as an analogy, as if science is talking about fixing cars and religion is talking about why we buy cars.

Why questions have little to do with how questions in these contexts. Why there is an earth in the first place is an entirely different question than how it was made.

So it is not that science and religion are compatible or incompatible- they are talking about different things.

It's like asking you right now, "Would you care for some cheese?"

Thanks for the response.

I agree with everything you have said. I also see the world this way.

[Cobalt-70]

As for science using DNA to prove Christ the son of god. That is an interesting question....

You could do it if you had a sample of Jesus' DNA and a sample of God the Father's DNA. As a control, it would be helpful to have a sample of Joseph's DNA as well.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Bikeemikey]

You could do it if you had a sample of Jesus' DNA and a sample of God the Father's DNA. As a control, it would be helpful to have a sample of Joseph's DNA as well.

I am interested in whether you would find non-human elements just in his dna sample... did he even have dna that would be observably human?

[Scott Lloyd]

What you don't understand would fill several large volumes.

The Lamanites are the heirs of the prophetic promises of the Book of Mormon. Perhaps you might try reading it sometime. Those promises are well worth inheriting.

Regards,

Pahoran

Pahoran was responding to this from Cobalt:

I have never quite understood why people would ever be pleased to call themselves a "Lamanite." In the Book of Mormon, the Lamanites were described as a "loathsome" people. Not only that, but in the last days, the "Lamanites" were prophesied to be "a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which hath ever been amongst us." (Morm. 5:15) Why would anyone want to be a member of any group that fits that description?

In recent years, i have heard the terms "descendants of Lehi" or "children of Lehi" as alternatives to "Lamanites." I find those terms preferable.

That said, not all the Lamanites in the Book of Mormon fit the description Cobalt quotes here. Samuel the Lamanite, for one, is among the most valiant and honorable men in the entire book.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Kemara]

Cobalt has made another statement similar to that quoted above by Scott:

I have never quite understood why people would ever be pleased to call themselves a "Lamanite."....Why would anyone want to be a member of any group that fits that description

...if I were a Native American or Polynesian...I can't imagine anyone being thrilled to embrace this view and claim this darkness and loathsomeness as their own heritage

The quotes themselves show that Cobalt managed to stumble over the real problem, with regards to this issue, without even realizing it. The real problem is that Cobalt “never quite understood” (probably never will) and “can’t imagine” why anyone would be “pleased to call themselves Lamanite”. Cobalts ethnocentricity is the problem that needs to be addressed. For many Maori there was much about the Lamanites that they were not only able to identify with but could admire and respect. There were many Maori in the past and many today who are proud to refer to themselves as Lamanite (whether they are in fact Lamanite is another story). This pride is based on their culture and lore, which is remarkably different to the culture and lore of Cobalt. Never quite understanding and not being able to imagine a differing point of view bespeaks the ignorance and bigotry (now isn't that ironic) of those who elect themselves the purveyors of what should be regarded as good, honourable and of value by a culture that is not one's own.

Edited November 3, 2012 by Kemara

[volgadon]

Cobalt has made another statement similar to that quoted above by Scott:

The quotes themselves show that Cobalt managed to stumble over the real problem, with regards to this issue, without even realizing it. The real problem is that Cobalt “never quite understood” (probably never will) and “can’t imagine” why anyone would be “pleased to call themselves Lamanite”. Cobalts ethnocentricity is the problem that needs to be addressed. For many Maori there was much about the Lamanites that they were not only able to identify with but could admire and respect. There were many Maori in the past and many today who are proud to refer to themselves as Lamanite (whether they are in fact Lamanite is another story). This pride is based on their culture and lore, which is remarkably different to the culture and lore of Cobalt. Never quite understanding and not being able to imagine a differing point of view bespeaks the ignorance and bigotry (now isn't that ironic) of those who elect themselves the purveyors of what should be regarded as good, honourable and of value by a culture that is not one's own.

I enjoy reading your posts.

[Cobalt-70]

The quotes themselves show that Cobalt managed to stumble over the real problem, with regards to this issue, without even realizing it. The real problem is that Cobalt “never quite understood” (probably never will) and “can’t imagine” why anyone would be “pleased to call themselves Lamanite”. Cobalts ethnocentricity is the problem that needs to be addressed. For many Maori there was much about the Lamanites that they were not only able to identify with but could admire and respect. There were many Maori in the past and many today who are proud to refer to themselves as Lamanite (whether they are in fact Lamanite is another story). This pride is based on their culture and lore, which is remarkably different to the culture and lore of Cobalt. Never quite understanding and not being able to imagine a differing point of view bespeaks the ignorance and bigotry (now isn't that ironic) of those who elect themselves the purveyors of what should be regarded as good, honourable and of value by a culture that is not one's own.

The problem is that I actually can imagine people identifying with the "dark and loathsome" Lamanites, but I think it's just kind of sad that Native Americans, Latinos, and Polynesians have gladly embraced the idea that they are Lamanites without a fight. You remember the studies in the 1950s about black school children in the segregated south who on average thought that white dolls were prettier than black dolls? Whoever the Lamanites were, fictional or otherwise, they were a dark and loathsome people, full of idleness and mischief. If you identify with the heritage of such a people, even when you don't have to, then isn't that just self-loathing?

Edited November 3, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Kemara]

The problem is that I actually can imagine people identifying with the "dark and loathsome" Lamanites, but I think it's just kind of sad that Native Americans, Latinos, and Polynesians have gladly embraced the idea that they have a dark and loathsome heritage. Isn't this a form of self-loathing? You remember the studies in the 1950s about black school children in the segregated south who on average thought that white dolls were prettier than black dolls?

So now, all of sudden, you can imagine it, whereas only a day or two ago you couldn’t - truly remarkable.

Once again you demonstrate your ethnocentric ignorance. You are sad only because you are looking at it through your cultural eyes where certain words, situations and/or events are interpreted by you as being unsavoury or bad. What you find unsavoury and bad others find good and valuable. I imagine there are a number of things that from your cultural point of view are good and valuable that other cultures would find unsavoury and bad. Which culture is right?

Please tell me what is so bad about being referred to as dark? What problem do you have with dark people that it is sad and bad that they are what they are? What in your mind is so bad about being dark? Enquiring non-bigoted minds want to know. Your view of loathsome is as equally appalling and for the same bigoted reasons. What is so sad about being loathsome from the cultural view point of Polynesians? Have you got something against the Polynesian point of view? Is the Polynesian culture and point of view inferior to yours for some reason? Do Polynesians have to value the same things and same words as you do? In various contexts looking loathsome is something aspired to by some Polynesians - aspired too and valued. Can you understand that, or is your elitism beyond correction?

If you looked at it through Polynesian cultural eyes you would see that there is nothing sad or bad about it - quite the opposite in fact. This would also alleviate the need for you to be so patronising.

You have got me thinking about one thing though. I wonder if the fact that so many light skinned people try to darken their skin by sunbathing (even risking death by skin cancer to do so) means that they suffer from a form of light skin self-loathing? Have you ever engaged in the self-loathing practice of sunbathing? If you have, I feel sooooooooo sad for you.

Edited November 3, 2012 by Kemara

[Kemara]

I enjoy reading your posts.

Coming from someone like you the complement is very gratifying. :)

[Scott Lloyd]

The problem is that I actually can imagine people identifying with the "dark and loathsome" Lamanites, but I think it's just kind of sad that Native Americans, Latinos, and Polynesians have gladly embraced the idea that they are Lamanites without a fight. You remember the studies in the 1950s about black school children in the segregated south who on average thought that white dolls were prettier than black dolls? Whoever the Lamanites were, fictional or otherwise, they were a dark and loathsome people, full of idleness and mischief. If you identify with the heritage of such a people, even when you don't have to, then isn't that just self-loathing?

In making this remark, Cobalt either forgets or purposely ignores the fact that at certain times in the Book of Mormon narrative, the Lamanites were the righteous and noble people in contrast to the Nephites.

The 2,000 stripling warriors, Lamanites, were described in the highest of terms, as being righteous, exceedingly valiant for courage and true at all times in whatsoever thing they were entrusted.

Each of us has ancestry that's a mixed bag, and there's no rational point in putting up a "fight" whenever this is mentioned.

If Cobalt thinks that each and every one of his ancestors going back millennia is a noble and exemplary individual, he is delusional indeed.

Edited November 4, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

So now, all of sudden, you can imagine it, whereas only a day or two ago you couldn’t - truly remarkable.

Once again you demonstrate your ethnocentric ignorance. You are sad only because you are looking at it through your cultural eyes where certain words, situations and/or events are interpreted by you as being unsavoury or bad. What you find unsavoury and bad others find good and valuable. I imagine there are a number of things that from your cultural point of view are good and valuable that other cultures would find unsavoury and bad. Which culture is right?

Please tell me what is so bad about being referred to as dark? What problem do you have with dark people that it is sad and bad that they are what they are? What in your mind is so bad about being dark? Enquiring non-bigoted minds want to know. Your view of loathsome is as equally appalling and for the same bigoted reasons. What is so sad about being loathsome from the cultural view point of Polynesians? Have you got something against the Polynesian point of view? Is the Polynesian culture and point of view inferior to yours for some reason? Do Polynesians have to value the same things and same words as you do? In various contexts looking loathsome is something aspired to by some Polynesians - aspired too and valued. Can you understand that, or is your elitism beyond correction?

If you looked at it through Polynesian cultural eyes you would see that there is nothing sad or bad about it - quite the opposite in fact. This would also alleviate the need for you to be so patronising.

You have got me thinking about one thing though. I wonder if the fact that so many light skinned people try to darken their skin by sunbathing (even risking death by skin cancer to do so) means that they suffer from a form of light skin self-loathing? Have you ever engaged in the self-loathing practice of sunbathing? If you have, I feel sooooooooo sad for you.

Nailed it!

[telnetd]

In various contexts looking loathsome is something aspired to by some Polynesians - aspired too and valued.

Please elaborate on this. In what contexts is skin color viewed loathsome? And which

of these contexts originated from God or Satan?

Gail

[Kemara]

Please elaborate on this. In what contexts is skin color viewed loathsome? And which of these contexts originated from God or Satan?

Gail

I cant elaborate on something I never said.

[Cobalt-70]

Once again you demonstrate your ethnocentric ignorance. You are sad only because you are looking at it through your cultural eyes where certain words, situations and/or events are interpreted by you as being unsavoury or bad. What you find unsavoury and bad others find good and valuable. I imagine there are a number of things that from your cultural point of view are good and valuable that other cultures would find unsavoury and bad. Which culture is right?

You're telling me that only Westerners are offended when Native Americans are called "dark and loathsome," and "unenticing" to white people? And Native Americans are perfectly okay with it because in their culture, they like being referred to as ugly and loathsome savages? And I'm the ethnocentrist?

Please tell me what is so bad about being referred to as dark?

Absolutely nothing. What is bad is that: (1) their "darkness" is associated with "loathsomeness," (2) their "darkness" is a curse put upon them because of their wickedness (Alma 3:6), so that white Nephites would find them to be ugly; and (3) when some of them became righteous, their skin turned white (3 Ne. 2:15), thus linking righteous to skin color.

What is so sad about being loathsome from the cultural view point of Polynesians? Have you got something against the Polynesian point of view?

Are you serious? You think that Polynesians like to be considered "loathsome" by white people?

[mfbukowski]

You're telling me that only Westerners are offended when Native Americans are called "dark and loathsome," and "unenticing" to white people? And Native Americans are perfectly okay with it because in their culture, they like being referred to as ugly and loathsome savages? And I'm the ethnocentrist?

Absolutely nothing. What is bad is that: (1) their "darkness" is associated with "loathsomeness," (2) their "darkness" is a curse put upon them because of their wickedness (Alma 3:6), so that white Nephites would find them to be ugly; and (3) when some of them became righteous, their skin turned white (3 Ne. 2:15), thus linking righteous to skin color.

Are you serious? You think that Polynesians like to be considered "loathsome" by white people?

Were someone to call Mormons "loathsome" which many do every day,

every

single

day,

I consider the source.

[Bikeemikey]

Were someone to call Mormons "loathsome" which many do every day,

every

single

day,

I consider the source.

I always consider the exclusion of Samuel the lamanites teachings from the Book of Mormon a critique of the nephites ethnocentric perspective. Jesus had to ask them to include his writings. Why were they not included already? Likely the nephites were major racists, just as the lamanites were.

So when the nephites call the lamanites loathsome it is a little of the pot calling the kettle black kind of thing.

Edited November 5, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[CV75]

I always consider the exclusion of Samuel the lamanites teachings from the Book of Mormon a critique of the nephites ethnocentric perspective. Jesus had to ask them to include his writings. Why were they not included already? Likely the nephites were major racists, just as the lamanites were.

So when the nephites call the lamanites loathsome it is a little of the pot calling the kettle black kind of thing.

I almost mentioned that in Sunday School yesterday!

[Scott Lloyd]

I always consider the exclusion of Samuel the lamanites teachings from the Book of Mormon a critique of the nephites ethnocentric perspective. Jesus had to ask them to include his writings. Why were they not included already? Likely the nephites were major racists, just as the lamanites were.

So when the nephites call the lamanites loathsome it is a little of the pot calling the kettle black kind of thing.

Were all of Samuel's teachings left out? I don't get that from my reading of 3 Nephi 23:9,

Verily i say unto you, I commanded my servant Samuel, the Lamanite ,that he should testify unto this people, that at the day that the Father should glorify his name in me that there were many saints who should arise from the dead, and should appear unto many, and should minister unto them. And he said unto them: Was it not so?

Samuel said a lot, as recorded in the Book of Helaman, of which the part cited by Jesus would have comprised only a small portion. I don't at all see any malevolent racism at play here, only a matter of human neglect.

As for Nephites being "major racists," that is contradicted by the episode of the conversion of King Lamoni, King Lamoni's father and the anti-Nephi-Lehies.

Edited November 5, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Bikeemikey]

Were all of Samuel's teachings left out? I don't get that from my reading of 3 Nephi 23:9,

Samuel said a lot, as recorded in the Book of Helaman, of which the part cited by Jesus would have comprised only a small portion. I don't at all see any malevolent racism at play here, only a matter of human neglect.

As for Nephites being "major racists," that is contradicted by the episode of the conversion of King Lamoni, King Lamoni's father and the anti-Nephi-Lehies.

To each there own. Neither of us has anything but conjecture on the issues referenced.

My assumption is that the Helaman inclusion of Samuel the Lamanite was done by Mormon, christs "rebuke" of their lack of inclusion of Samuel Predated the compilation of the current Bom... Infact, Mormons decision to include Samuel may have been made after the reading of christs reference to the issue.

Also, creating a distinct community where the individuals don't assimilate into the broader society is a form of racism. I am not criticizing them for the fact.. Rather making the observation that everyone then was heavily racist. The whole Bom is a history of different -ites fighting to define who the best group was.