Could The Lamanites Really Have Disappeared

[bluebell]

"The science is not complete and it is not able to pinpoint heritage with any degree of certainty."

The escape hatch for many LDS. When will it ever be complete?

Any thoughts on all the other posts where information has been shared, or is this the only statement on the whole page you thought important and relevant enough to your question in the opening post to respond to?

[MormonMason]

So do the Native Americans.

That is true, for the most part. I wonder if his work among the Navaho (am I remembering this right?) and Hopi had anything to do with that "denial."

[Deborah]

DNA is a fascinating tool, but I think it is still a fledgeling science. Along these lines I find the recent discovery of the Lemba particularly fascinating. In doing genetic studies they found that "just under one out of every 10 Lemba that we looked at had this particular Y chromosomal type that appears to be a signature of Jewish ancestry. " Yet that was sufficient to presuppose that "the Lemba, and more specifically some members of the Buba sub-clan, seem to have an ancestral connection to Judaic populations. Like an oral history, but written in the letters of their DNA, the Lemba Y chromosome hands from father to son a living record of the past."

http://www.pbs.org/w...amilylemba.html

Given that the Nephites were pretty much destroyed and whoever was left were absorbed into the remaining Lamanites, who no doubt mixed with othe peoples who had discovered this land, is anyone really surprised there isn't a strong genetic influence seen?

[MormonMason]

DNA is a fascinating tool, but I think it is still a fledgeling science. Along these lines I find the recent discovery of the Lemba particularly fascinating. In doing genetic studies they found that "just under one out of every 10 Lemba that we looked at had this particular Y chromosomal type that appears to be a signature of Jewish ancestry. " Yet that was sufficient to presuppose that "the Lemba, and more specifically some members of the Buba sub-clan, seem to have an ancestral connection to Judaic populations. Like an oral history, but written in the letters of their DNA, the Lemba Y chromosome hands from father to son a living record of the past."

http://www.pbs.org/w...amilylemba.html

Given that the Nephites were pretty much destroyed and whoever was left were absorbed into the remaining Lamanites, who no doubt mixed with othe peoples who had discovered this land, is anyone really surprised there isn't a strong genetic influence seen?

With the Lemba, they adopted a strict policy of marrying only within the tribe for the Buba sub-clan. The others of the Lemba did not seem to have that restriction, so less of the DNA survived in the other members of the group. But, for the most part, all their mtDNA was African. This is why they decided to look into the y-chDNA instead. The mtDNA was worthless in their case because they were looking for a way to confirm the oral traditions of the Lemba and the mtDNA was African due to immediate intermarriages with native African females.

It is of interest that they dropped the ratio to 1 in 10 when the percentage originally was considered at the beginning of testing to be at close to 50%. I suppose that is what happens when samples are added to the mix in DNA group testing.

[Questing Beast]

A lot of things "seem" to be so, to you. Yet, you know nothing about population genetics, nor about genetics at all, and you brag about speaking from a position of ignorance. Is this what substitutes for real discussion?

I read like anybody else. Is anyone on this thread a geneticist? Are you qualified to speak as an instructor on genetics? I read. And what I have read, which is reinforced in this thread, is that fairly recent genetic tracing works easily enough to be reliable and instructive, but thousands of years ago is impossible, at the current state of the technology, to trace beyond the mitochondrial DNA, which is useless for determining the movements of whole populations with any certainty. Thus my brief comment about assertions being a "non study". If only mitochondrial DNA is traceable that leaves out everyone who is not positively descended from specific women. Do we have specific DNA from any BoM women? I thought not. Do we even have DNA from any positively Asian women from the ancient period, to show that their descendants came over here anciently? Nope. What we have, as far as I understand it, is the same mitochondrial DNA over there and over here. Time frame is not forthcoming. But it appears to be very old indeed....

[Storm Rider]

I wish genetics was such a reliable, perfected science that could instruct humanity with all the answers about all people without ever missing anything. The problem is that there is not a knowledgeable geneticist alive that makes that claim. I doubt strongly that even Southerton would make that claim with other geneticists in the room. The issue is trying to understand what science knows and also understanding what we don't know. It is a foolish man indeed that claims science has all the answers and only the answers. The great thing about science its it allows questions to exist and to direct research. Maybe some day we will have the key to all genetic knowledge and be able to confidently proclaim that there are no exceptions and all is known. That day is not today.

[CA Steve]

Has genetics had any influence on how the Church views Lamanites?

[MormonMason]

Has genetics had any influence on how the Church views Lamanites?

I don't see why it would. I have many ancestors in my lineage, some of whom are Native American, but you would never know it from my DNA. I see it the same way as with the Lamanites. Not all Native Americans may be Lamanites, but it is possible, and it is possible for the science of genetics not to be able to find Lamanite DNA in many who may well be descended therefrom. I have tens of thousands of ancestors and only a couple direct lineages can be traced in the DNA used in population studies. The genetic information from the tens of thousands is lost forever. SNPs may well show some interesting things in the future but you have to have a starting point of reference to obtain any sort of real information from them.

With the Neanderthal and the Denisovan we have such starting points of reference. Not so with Jacob the father of the children of Israel. We need either his body or direct line descendants, preferably his sons and daughter to even begin to get such a point of reference. Possibly it could be done with an isolated pocket of direct descendants who did not intermarry with the local populations where they are found but I know of no examples of such. In most cases I am aware of mtDNA is not very useful in testing Jewish populations precisely because of all the intermarriages that occurred very early on during their migrations. This being the case, it will be very difficult if not impossible, to form a definitive baseline for comparison. Maybe they will figure out a way someday. They will keep trying, I am sure.

But has genetics had any influence on how the Church views Lamanites? Perhaps among some individuals it might have had some influence. The rest don't care. Limited geography understandings had their origin in the time of Joseph Smith and became more fully developed in the 1920s to 1940s, in spite of Orson Pratt's attempt at conforming footnotes to geographical locations as part of a hemispheric understanding. I am sure that those footnotes influenced a number of people until the Church ordered those geographical footnotes out of the printed editions. Many years ago I knew a an older man influenced by his grandfather, who himself had been influenced by those footnotes. He grew quite angry when discussing limited geographies in spite of the fact that the Church leaders removed footnotes early on that were geographical in nature and would conform to a hemispheric geography.

I mention this simply because limited geography constructs can and often do have a bearing on the subject of genetics.

[telnetd]

I don't see why it would. I have many ancestors in my lineage, some of whom are Native American, but you would never know it from my DNA. I see it the same way as with the Lamanites. Not all Native Americans may be Lamanites, but it is possible

Doctrine and Covenants 32:2 says "And that which I have appointed

unto him is that he shall go with my servants, Oliver Cowdery and Peter

Whitmer, Jun., into the wilderness among the Lamanites".

These people apparently knew who the Lamanites were.

Gail

[Helen47]

"If a small family of Middle Eastern Jews mixed with American Indians 2-3,000 years ago, the Jewish nuclear DNA would spread throughout the adjacent populations like a drop of ink in a bucket of water. It would have spread through neighbouring populations, be very unlikely to go extinct and scientists exploring the genomes of Native Americans would stumble on it....if it was there. "

Is Simon wrong?

[MormonMason]

"If a small family of Middle Eastern Jews mixed with American Indians 2-3,000 years ago, the Jewish nuclear DNA would spread throughout the adjacent populations like a drop of ink in a bucket of water. It would have spread through neighbouring populations, be very unlikely to go extinct and scientists exploring the genomes of Native Americans would stumble on it....if it was there. "

Is Simon wrong?

We know for a certainty the nuclear DNA makeup of Jacob himself or his direct line, first generation descendants, or an isolated pocket of Jewish population that did not intermarry with the indigenous population or take in proselytes, to form a baseline for comparison. Yes or no? Your answer will be the opposite of the answer to this question.

He may, however, have a point to explore considering recent finds among HLA-DNA in Mesoamerican populations that I read about some years ago. These HLA-DNA lineages seemingly have affinities with the HLA-DNA of populations of peoples from the Middle East. The highest concentrations of these lineages have been found among groups concentrated in regions that spoke and still speak some form of Uto-Aztecan language. According to preliminary work done by Brian Stubbs, these languages have hundreds of connections with Hebrew and Egyptian words, often even carrying the same meanings as words in the apparently related Uto-Aztecan languages.

Perhaps something else of interest might be found one day. We'll have to wait and see. We still have yet to identify any exclusively "Jewish" nuclear DNA to use as a baseline. LOLROTF!

[MormonMason]

Doctrine and Covenants 32:2 says "And that which I have appointed

unto him is that he shall go with my servants, Oliver Cowdery and Peter

Whitmer, Jun., into the wilderness among the Lamanites".

These people apparently knew who the Lamanites were.

Gail

I take no issue with pockets of Lamanites and their descendants scattered around North and South America via intermarriages as well as population migrations and trade. I also have no problem with references from the Doctrine and Covenants. You are addressing the wrong person if you think I am bothered by such.

[canard78]

I would be careful to say this is the view of LDS members. The idea that their were other inhabitants of the Americas outside of those described in the BoM has not caught on until relatively recently as more and more archeological evidence has proved this to be true. On my mission just over ten years ago when I would tell the other Elders that their were other groups of people on the American continent outside of the Nephites and Lamanites they would usually look at me like I had two heads or was an apostate.

Lol, me too. We had Book of Mormon firesides in the mid-90s where the case for a pre-populated continent was being proposed (using mainly FARMS material). When I then went on my mission and tried to share the idea with other missionaries I also got the reaction you describe. I would imagine there are still members who would react this way given they believe the prophet(s) (e.g. wentworth letter) and the BoM teach this (2 Nep 1:6-.

I find plenty of room for a pre-populated continent in the Book of Mormon. But it's a fairly new idea in the church (30-40 years old?)

I hear mention of 'only 30 people or so.' First, as people practicing the law of Moses (??) wouldn't they have been mainly marrying in the covenant? Second, what about the Mulekites? There's more than just the DNA of the 30 who arrived with Lehi to consider.

By the way, is Lehi's prophecy still valid?

6 Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord.

Are we talking only their little patch? Their 'limited geography' is protected? Or the entire North & South American continent? Is every person that goes there (Vikings, immigrants today, people on vacation) brought by the Lord's hand? I'm guessing probably not.

[Calm]

But it's a fairly new idea in the church (30-40 years old?)

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=15&num=2&id=505

[MormonMason]

...

I find plenty of room for a pre-populated continent in the Book of Mormon. But it's a fairly new idea in the church (30-40 years old?)

...

http://maxwellinstit...15&num=2&id=505

Based on one quote in this article, that number should be up-revised to 92 years. For the earlier quote allowing the possibility of the arrival of others in the land from other locales, make that 104 years.

By the way, is Lehi's prophecy still valid?

Based upon my reading of the text, it was something that would hold true for Lehi and his people until the people fell into iniquity. See verses 9-11 of the same prophecy.

Edited May 27, 2013 by MormonMason

[Robert F. Smith]

I read like anybody else. Is anyone on this thread a geneticist? Are you qualified to speak as an instructor on genetics? I read. And what I have read, which is reinforced in this thread, is that fairly recent genetic tracing works easily enough to be reliable and instructive, but thousands of years ago is impossible, at the current state of the technology, to trace beyond the mitochondrial DNA, which is useless for determining the movements of whole populations with any certainty. Thus my brief comment about assertions being a "non study". If only mitochondrial DNA is traceable that leaves out everyone who is not positively descended from specific women. Do we have specific DNA from any BoM women? I thought not. Do we even have DNA from any positively Asian women from the ancient period, to show that their descendants came over here anciently? Nope. What we have, as far as I understand it, is the same mitochondrial DNA over there and over here. Time frame is not forthcoming. But it appears to be very old indeed....

Actually every one of your assumptions here is false. mtDNA and Y-chromosome distinctions are old hat now, as Southerton tried to point out to you. Now we take the entire genome and distinguish minute contributions from long ago. Indeed, one can even date the approximate era from which certain contributions come.

However, Southerton wants to have his cake and eat it too (a common problem on this board) in falsely claiming that the Book of Mormon is about all the Amerinds and their ancestors who have ever existed in the Western Hemisphere. I'd like to see him debate this issue within anthropological reality. If his position is so strong, why doesn't he do that?

[Robert F. Smith]

...........................................

By the way, is Lehi's prophecy still valid?

Quote

6 Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord.

Are we talking only their little patch? Their 'limited geography' is protected? Or the entire North & South American continent? Is every person that goes there (Vikings, immigrants today, people on vacation) brought by the Lord's hand? I'm guessing probably not.

Very germane question. Are we talking about Mexico and Guatemala?

[canard78]

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=15&num=2&id=505

Thanks Cal. I probably wasn't clear. I didn't mean that FARMS 'invented' this as a new idea 30-40 years ago. I meant that this was still a new idea for a lot of members.

A quote stands out on this:

For me, this obvious insight goes back over forty years to the first class I took on the Book of Mormon at Brigham Young University. . . . Here I was introduced to the idea that the Book of Mormon is not a history of all of the people who have lived on the continents of North and South America in all ages of the earth.

In '93 Elder Oaks remembers having a changed perspective while at BYU 40 years or so earlier. So that means that 60 years ago, if Elder Oaks is anything to go by, the general membership did think of the whole continent as the setting. It was only at a BYU class that he was introduced to the idea. Many members didn't go to BYU classes and many still did (and often do) see it as a bigger/northern geography.

I was chatting just recently with a former Stake president who was convinced that New York hill cumorah was also the last battle setting. I didn't get into a discussion with him about trying to correct that idea.

[MormonMason]

Thanks Cal. I probably wasn't clear. I didn't mean that FARMS 'invented' this as a new idea 30-40 years ago. I meant that this was still a new idea for a lot of members.

So many members of the Church not reading the Church magazines like they have repeated been asked, even then... Had they done so they would have been exposed to this idea much sooner.

Janne M. Sjodahl, "The Book of Mormon and Modern Research," Improvement Era, December 1921, 154-55, 156.

More on this appeared in the Improvement Era, September 1927, under the article title of "Suggested Key to Book of Mormon Geography." This article discussed in detail the various theories of Book of Mormon Geography.

The interesting thing is that many years ago I was able to read many of these articles (and others) in this magazine by visiting the old Ward library. But, how many members actually availed themselves of such at the times when these were available?

[canard78]

Very germane question. Are we talking about Mexico and Guatemala?

For it to fit with the rest of American history I'd have to presume that the whole chapter is using 'this land' as 'this specific piece of land we have inherited' rather than 'these continents.'

It's possible that the land the Lehites inherited had been protected/kept secret. But after that I don't see much more scope for this prophesy beyond it.

[canard78]

So many members of the Church not reading the Church magazines like they have repeated been asked, even then... Had they done so they would have been exposed to this idea much sooner.

Janne M. Sjodahl, "The Book of Mormon and Modern Research," Improvement Era, December 1921, 154-55, 156.

More on this appeared in the Improvement Era, September 1927, under the article title of "Suggested Key to Book of Mormon Geography." This article discussed in detail the various theories of Book of Mormon Geography.

The interesting thing is that many years ago I was able to read many of these articles (and others) in this magazine by visiting the old Ward library. But, how many members actually availed themselves of such at the times when these were available?

Do you extend that criticism to the brethren and prophets of the church?

I don't have a problem with them being wrong. We're all human and given to our presumptions. But it sticks in my throat when I hear certain apologists lay open the publications of history and say 'it's all here if you were paying close attention.'

To quote a few:

"The great and last battle, in which several hundred thousand Nephites perished was on the hill Cumorah, the same hill from which the plates were taken by Joseph Smith, the boy about whom I spoke to you the other evening." (Talk given by Apostle Orson Pratt, Feb. 11, 1872 Journal of Discourses Vol. 14, pg. 331)

"These records were carried by Ether from the hill Ramah, afterwards called Cumorah, where the Jaredites were destroyed, as well as the Nephites." (Talk given by Apostle Orson Pratt, May 18, 1873 Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, pg. 50

"Thirty-six years prior to this time his nation was destroyed in in what we term the State of New York, around about a hill, called by that people the Hill of Cumorah, when many hundreds of thousands of the Nephites-men, women and children, fell, during the greatest battle that they had had with the Lamanites." (Talk given by Apostle Orson Pratt, Aug. 25, 1878 Journal of Discourses Vol. 20, pg. 62)

"It will be, next Thursday night, 54 years since the Prophet Joseph Smith, then but a lad, was permitted by the angel of the Lord to take the gold plates of the Book of Mormon from the hill Cumorah, as it was called in ancient times, located in the State of New York. " (Talk given by Apostle Orson Pratt, Sept. 18, 1881 Journal of Discourses Vol. 22, pg. 224)

"Finally, they became so utterly wicked, so fully ripened for destruction, that one branch of the nation, called the Nephites, gathered their entire people around the hill Cumorah, in the State of New York , in Ontario County; and the Lamanites, the opposite army, gathered by millions in the same region. The two nations were four years in gathering their forces, during which no fighting took place; but at the end of that time, having marshalled all their hosts, the fighting commenced, the Lamanites coming upon the Nephites, and destroying all of them, except a very few, who had previously deserted over to the Lamanites." (Talk given by Apostle Orson Pratt, April 6, 1874 Journal of Discourses Vol. 17, pg. 24)

"The passages which I have quoted from the Book of Mormon and the more extended discussion of this subject by Elder B. H. Roberts which was published in The Deseret News of March 3, 1928, definitely establish the following facts: That the Hill Cumorah, and the Hill Ramah are identical; that it was around this hill that the armies of both the Jaredites and Nephites, fought their great last battles; that it was in this hill that Mormon deposited all of the sacred records which had been entrusted to his care by Ammaron, except the abridgment which he had made from the plates of Nephi, which were delivered into the hands of his' son, Moroni. We know positively that it was in this hill that Moroni deposited the abridgment made by his father, and his own abridgment of the record of the Jaredites, and that it was from this hill that Joseph Smith obtained possession of them. " (President Anthony W. Ivins, Conference Report, April 1928-Morning Session)

"Cumorah, the artificial hill of north America, is well calculated to stand in this generation, as a monument of marvelous works and wonders. Around that mount died millions of the Jaredites; yea, there ended one of the greatest nations of this earth. In that day, her inhabitants spread from sea to sea, and enjoyed national greatness and glory, nearly fifteen hundred years. -- That people forsook the Lord and died in wickedness. There, too, fell the Nephites, after they had forgotten the Lord that bought them. There slept the records of age after age, for hundreds of years, even until the time of the Lord." (The Latter-day Saints' Messenger and Advocate, Vol.2, No.2, p.221)

"The hill, which was known by one division of the ancient peoples as Cumorah, by another as Ramah, is situated near Palmyra in the State of New York ." (Apostle James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith , chapter 14)

"It is known that the Hill Cumorah where the Nephites were destroyed is the hill where the Jaredites were also destroyed. This hill was known to the Jaredites as Rama. It was approximately near to the waters of Ripliancum, which the Book of Ether says, "by interpretation, is large, or to exceed all." Mormon adds: "And it came to pass that we did march forth to the land of Cumorah, and we did pitch our tents round about the hill Cumorah; and it was in a land of many waters, rivers, and fountains; and here we had hope to gain advantage over the Lamanites."

"It must be conceded that this description fits perfectly the land of Cumorah in New York, as it has been known since the visitation of Moroni to the Prophet Joseph Smith, for the hill is in the proximity of the Great Lakes and also in the land of many rivers and fountains. Moreover, the Prophet Joseph Smith himself is on record, definitely declaring the present hill called Cumorah to be the exact hill spoken of in the Book of Mormon.

"Further, the fact that all of his associates from the beginning down have spoken of it as the identical hill where Mormon and Moroni hid the records, must carry some weight. It is difficult for a reasonable person to believe that such men as Oliver Cowdery, Brigham Young, Parley P. Pratt, Orson Pratt, David Whitmer, and many others, could speak frequently of the Spot where the Prophet Joseph Smith obtained the plates as the Hill Cumorah, and not be corrected by the Prophet, if that were not the fact. That they did speak of this hill in the days of the Prophet in this definite manner is an established record of history...." (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation , Vol.3, Bookcraft, 1956, p.232-43.)

"In the western part of the state of New York near Palmyra is a prominent hill known as the “hill Cumorah.” On July twenty-fifth of this year, as I stood on the crest of that hill admiring with awe the breathtaking panorama which stretched out before me on every hand, my mind reverted to the events which occurred in that vicinity some twenty-five centuries ago—events which brought to an end the great Jaredite nation .

...

"This second civilization to which I refer, the Nephites , flourished in America between 600 B.C. and A.D. 400. Their civilization came to an end for the same reason, at the same place, and in the same manner as did the Jaredites’" (Talk given by President Marion G. Romney in General Conference, October 4, 1975, Ensign Nov. 1975 pg. 35)

"Both the Nephite and Jaredite civilizations fought their final great wars of extinction at and near the Hill Cumorah (or Ramah as the Jaredites termed it), which hill is located between Palmyra and Manchester in the western part of the State of New York.

"Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery and many of the early brethren, who were familiar with all the circumstances attending the coming forth of the Book of Mormon in this dispensation, have left us a pointed testimony as to the identity and location of Cumorah or Ramah."(Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, page 174-175, Bookcraft 1966)

"This time it will have to do with so important a matter as a war of extinction of two peoples, the Nephites and the Jaredites, on the self same battle site, with the same 'hill' marking the axis of military movements. By the Nephites this 'hill' was called the 'Hill Cumorah,' by the Jaredites the 'Hill Ramah'; it was that same 'hill,' in which the Nephite records were deposited by Mormon and Moroni, and from which Joseph Smith obtained the Book of Mormon, therefore the 'Mormon Hill,' of today—since the coming forth of the Book of Mormon—near Palmyra, New York. (B.H. Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon, p.277)

When I'm back 'with my books' I'll check whether my 1991 edition of Mormon Doctrine retains the statement by Elder McConkie about it.

It's really, really easy to see why many people are even now still convinced that NY is the BoM setting when so many of their leaders were stating it's so for the last 100+ years.

I'm fine with our leaders fallibility. I'm fine that they had presumed they knew the BoM's location and have never made it a matter of revelation (though it might be handy to give the diggers at least a little clue). But our magazines have either been oblique in their references or the leaders don't bother reading them. Either way, it's not enough to say 'you should have known' if you have a handful of speculative references in old Ensigns when statements to the contrary are being made in Conference or one of the best selling books on Mormonism (McConkie's MD).

[Robert F. Smith]

For it to fit with the rest of American history I'd have to presume that the whole chapter is using 'this land' as 'this specific piece of land we have inherited' rather than 'these continents.'

It's possible that the land the Lehites inherited had been protected/kept secret. But after that I don't see much more scope for this prophesy beyond it.

I Ne 1:5 could be taken as referring to the entire Western Hemisphere, just to the Northern Hemisphere, or to Mesoamerica only. After all the promised land of Abraham and the Israelites was even smaller than the Nephite-Lamanite holdings based solely on internal analysis of the Book of Mormon text. The word "land" in Hebrew and Egyptian (and in English) can refer to large or small regions or whole continents.

Now, if Lehi is prophesying that only those led by the Lord can come to that promised land somewhere in the Americas, what does that mean? Does that sound temporary to you? It does to me. Moreover, it is consecrated to whomever the Lord brings, such that only disobedience and iniquity can curse the land and the people who occupy it. Meantime, knowledge of that land would be kept from Old World nations and peoples. All this in the early 6th century B.C., with a millennium of Book of Mormon events ahead. Are these promises only temporary, and do they wax and wane over time the same way the land of promise (Palestine) is owed to the Israelites?

The Prophecy ends with Nephite iniquity, the coming of disaster, and loss of that inheritance. Indeed, the prophecy is always conditional on obedience (1:32).

[canard78]

I Ne 1:5 could be taken as referring to the entire Western Hemisphere, just to the Northern Hemisphere, or to Mesoamerica only. After all the promised land of Abraham and the Israelites was even smaller than the Nephite-Lamanite holdings based solely on internal analysis of the Book of Mormon text. The word "land" in Hebrew and Egyptian (and in English) can refer to large or small regions or whole continents.

Now, if Lehi is prophesying that only those led by the Lord can come to that promised land somewhere in the Americas, what does that mean? Does that sound temporary to you? It does to me. Moreover, it is consecrated to whomever the Lord brings, such that only disobedience and iniquity can curse the land and the people who occupy it. Meantime, knowledge of that land would be kept from Old World nations and peoples. All this in the early 6th century B.C., with a millennium of Book of Mormon events ahead. Are these promises only temporary, and do they wax and wane over time the same way the land of promise (Palestine) is owed to the Israelites?

The Prophecy ends with Nephite iniquity, the coming of disaster, and loss of that inheritance. Indeed, the prophecy is always conditional on obedience (1:32).

I agree that 'this land' most likely applies to their 'patch' - but many still read it as the full Americas (north and south continents).

I wonder whether the Wentworth letter fits a 'limited geography' 'this land' model? Or maybe Joseph didn't realise the internal geography contradicted what he saw in vision/was told by Moroni/presumed based on his own prejudice.

I was also informed concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this country [America], and shown who they were, and from whence they came; a brief sketch of their origin, progress, civilization, laws, governments, of their righteousness and iniquity, and the blessings of God being finally withdrawn from them as a people was made known unto me: I was also told where there was deposited some plates on which were engraven an abridgment of the records of the ancient prophets that had existed on this continent. The angel appeared to me three times the same night and unfolded the same things. After having received many visits from the angels of God unfolding the majesty and glory of the events that should transpire in the last days, on the morning of the 22d of September, A.D. 1827, the angel of the Lord delivered the records into my hands.

Having said that, you could still squeeze that statement into limited geography. If 'this continent' means the whole north and south then technically they could have been on it, just not on very much of it.

[MormonMason]

Do you extend that criticism to the brethren and prophets of the church?

I don't have a problem with them being wrong. We're all human and given to our presumptions. But it sticks in my throat when I hear certain apologists lay open the publications of history and say 'it's all here if you were paying close attention.'

...

Dallin H. Oaks was not a General Authority in the 1940s so I would not apply it to him. How many times have the Brethren asked members of the Church to read the Church magazines? When members fail to do so and instead invest their money in reprinted and out of date anthologies (much like Evangelicals do with republishing texts going back to the 19th century and relying upon them as though no other text matters) that often were written when individuals were not even Presidents of the Church, of from non-official sources such as the Journal of Discourses, then does not the fault reside squarely in the laps of the general membership of the Church? Please explain why not if you think not?

As to Mormon Doctrine, mine collects dust even when I am home with my books.

And, I don't have a problem with fallibility of leaders, either. It is a non-issue for me. It still does not detract from what I have written. If members did as the Brethren asked, and read the magazines of the Church, they would have been exposed to concepts relating to limited hemispheric geographies as well as to a great many other subjects that critics of the Church falsely claim the Church has hidden from them and suppressed!

[Robert F. Smith]

Do you extend that criticism to the brethren and prophets of the church?

I don't have a problem with them being wrong. We're all human and given to our presumptions. But it sticks in my throat when I hear certain apologists lay open the publications of history and say 'it's all here if you were paying close attention.'

To quote a few:

When I'm back 'with my books' I'll check whether my 1991 edition of Mormon Doctrine retains the statement by Elder McConkie about it.

It's really, really easy to see why many people are even now still convinced that NY is the BoM setting when so many of their leaders were stating it's so for the last 100+ years.

I'm fine with our leaders fallibility. I'm fine that they had presumed they knew the BoM's location and have never made it a matter of revelation (though it might be handy to give the diggers at least a little clue). But our magazines have either been oblique in their references or the leaders don't bother reading them. Either way, it's not enough to say 'you should have known' if you have a handful of speculative references in old Ensigns when statements to the contrary are being made in Conference or one of the best selling books on Mormonism (McConkie's MD).

Thanks for that wonderful assemblage of statements supporting a Cumorah in New York position (to be sung to Alfred Newman's music and Ken Darby's lyrics: "When it's Cumorah in New York"). You are as good as any apologist for a position as I have ever seen. As has long been noted, parallels and arguments for a position are only as good as the balance provided by contrary statements and parallels.