Could The Lamanites Really Have Disappeared

[Robert F. Smith]

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

(Anybody who sets out to scientifically prove the BOM true is headed for trouble anyway, whether it is Thomas Stuart Ferguson or Simon Southerton.)

Would you apply that very hard and fast rule to Hugh Nibley and to John L. Sorenson? I mention them only as prime examplars. I could mention many more. Have you thought this notion through, Brother Douglas? If so, could you explain it to me?

[DJBrown]

I won't have time to read previous posts on this thread but here is my two-bits.....

The BOM says that a "remnant of the seed of Joseph will survive"--or this is what Lehi is promised. What is a "remnant"? I think it is what we're seeing in the DNA studies of Simon Southerton and others like him, i.e., Nephite and Lamanite DNA in current samples is next to invisible, or non-existent.

(Anybody who sets out to scientifically prove the BOM true is headed for trouble anyway, whether it is Thomas Stuart Ferguson or Simon Southerton.)

You refer to "DNA studies of Simon Southerton." And what studies to you specifically refer to? He has done no actual hands-on DNA research relating to American natives or the Book of Mormon. He has tried to extrapolate from the research of others. And none of that research was designed in a manner that would have answered the question to which he is forcing an answer.

And using your logic, what are we to conclude from the absolute inability of mDNA and Y-chromosomal DNA assays to detect the majority of known and clearly documented Icelandic ancestors who lived just 150 year before the Icelanders today? Is today's population of Iceland not a "remnant" of the majority of their ancestors from 150 years ago?

[DJBrown]

In his article on the Lamanites in the Encyclopaedia of Mormonism (Macmillan), John L. Sorenson pointed out that the designation is used in the Church (in D&C and in assumptions by leaders) as a generic reference to Amerinds, since it has been so long since the demise of the Nephites, and (as many population geneticists have pointed out) since the the spread of some minuscule portion of Lamanite genes throughout the Americas and even Polynesia is a foregone conclusion. It is only in that sense that one can speak of Lamanites as though they are identical to Amerinds.

This reality is almost never articulated or appreciated. But it is a very big deal, in my opinion.

[justdreamin]

Can you guys discuss skin color now? If the population that inhabited the area were from Asia, is it safe to assume that they were already brown, rather than white? And wouldn't the eastern European be more brown that white? Where or when did the concept of being 'fair or white, and delightsome" come from and wouldn't it be an easier find, genetically speaking, to determine when a population suddenly had a pigment change? I'm being serious. If everyone were more brown than white to begin with, what exactly was the curse?

Edited May 29, 2013 by justdreamin

[thesometimesaint]

Can you guys discuss skin color now? If the population that inhabited the area were from Asia, is it safe to assume that they were already brown, rather than white? And wouldn't the eastern European be more brown that white? Where or when did the concept of being 'fair or white, and delightsome" come from and wouldn't it be an easier find, genetically speaking, to determine when a population suddenly had a pigment change? I'm being serious. If everyone were more brown than white to begin with, what exactly was the curse?

What about it? Within any large population there is a broad range of skin colors. The olive skinned Italian is just as Caucasian as "white" skinned Swede as is the brown skinned Afghan.

Fair and delightsome comes from the Bible, and is talking about morality and reverence towards God. It is not about skin color.

The curse was the lack of Priesthood. Several American Tribes are known to have artificially darkened their skin with various paints, and dyes to appear more ferocious to their enemies. IE; Putting on War Paint.

[bcuzbcuz]

It is only in that sense that one can speak of Lamanites as though they are identical to Amerinds.

You were obviously raised in a different era in the church than I was. There is definitely a generation gap. When I grew up, all Lamanites were Native Americans and vice-versa. Every native person that Joseph Smith came into contact with was viewed by him to be Lamanite.

http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/joseph-smith-prophet-man/14-joseph-smith-and-lamanites

Would Joseph Smith have accepted your reasoning?

[bcuzbcuz]

And using your logic, what are we to conclude from the absolute inability of mDNA and Y-chromosomal DNA assays to detect the majority of known and clearly documented Icelandic ancestors who lived just 150 year before the Icelanders today? Is today's population of Iceland not a "remnant" of the majority of their ancestors from 150 years ago?

CFR. I'd love to see your data that clarifies your very misguiding statement "absolute inability of mDNA and Y-chromosomal DNA assays to detect the majority of known and clearly documented Icelandic ancestors who lived just 150 year before the Icelanders today"

150 years ago?? Show me. I can show you linguistic links that go back further than 150 years in Iceland, much further back. You can show me by mtDNA and Y-chromosomal DNA studies done in Icelandic if you choose. I know enough of the language to read it myself.

[Robert F. Smith]

You were obviously raised in a different era in the church than I was. There is definitely a generation gap. When I grew up, all Lamanites were Native Americans and vice-versa.

I have been around a lot longer than you, and I too had at one time a very naive view of Lamanites. So, yes, there is plenty of Mormon folklore out there and not all of it is based on a factual assessement of the available information. I hope that you are not claiming that the yokels have got it right!!

Every native person that Joseph Smith came into contact with was viewed by him to be Lamanite.

http://rsc.byu.edu/a...h-and-lamanites

Would Joseph Smith have accepted your reasoning?

I guess you didn't read my post where I explained that of course any Amerind may be considered a "Lamanite" by virtue of being a very distant relative of actual "Lamanites" from the Book of Mormon period -- 1500+ years presumably being enough time for their genes to be scattered throughout the Western Hemisphere -- but, if you are speaking of direct descendants of Lehi and his associated groups, then it is utterly silly to speak of them as full-blooded descendants.

Although you seem to mistakenly understand Joseph as all-knowing and infallible, Joseph Smith and his friends early on never gave such matters any thought, and certainly knew nothing of genetic inheritance. On the other hand, they were certainly excited when they saw the work of Stephens & Catherwood, and with good reason: This was the first time that a civilization had been discovered which could be attributed to Book of Mormon times. Any vision shown to Joseph by Moroni would certainly have entailed just such a high culture.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

Can you guys discuss skin color now? If the population that inhabited the area were from Asia, is it safe to assume that they were already brown, rather than white? And wouldn't the eastern European be more brown that white? Where or when did the concept of being 'fair or white, and delightsome" come from and wouldn't it be an easier find, genetically speaking, to determine when a population suddenly had a pigment change? I'm being serious. If everyone were more brown than white to begin with, what exactly was the curse?

Ancient DNA can be used to determine skin pigmentation, eye color, hair color, etc. If you read the BofM carefully, you will find that the curse is symbolic self-marking, or a curse of character. The Bible actually uses the same type of vocabulary to refer to character.

[Questing Beast]

That's why I said "tried." Your failure to read him was obvious.

"genetic tracing"?

In his article on the Lamanites in the Encyclopaedia of Mormonism (Macmillan), Gordon C. Thomasson pointed out that the designation is used in the Church (in D&C and in assumptions by leaders) as a generic reference to Amerinds, since it has been so long since the demise of the Nephites, and (as many population geneticists have pointed out) since the the spread of some minuscule portion of Lamanite genes throughout the Americas and even Polynesia is a foregone conclusion. It is only in that sense that one can speak of Lamanites as though they are identical to Amerinds.

So JS quoting "the Lord" in the first person refers to "the Lamanites" repeatedly in the D&C, and they are merely a minuscule portion of the Amerinds IDed as Lamanites? That is very post-genetics apologia, imho. Without any genetics intruded upon D&C references to "Lamanites" and the "land/borders of the Lamanites", there would not be the slightest beginning of any doubt who the "Lamanites" were/are. But they are not Jews, any more than they are Europeans. Any trace of DNA of either is accidental after c. two millennia, genetic drift and bottlenecks, and the spread of "Israel" throughout the entire Earth. At this point, any further IDing of Amerinds as "Lamanites" is merely rhetorical and I might as well call myself a "Lamanite" too, or a "Zoramite" or any other "ite" that I choose, based on nothing more than figurative IDing with a society or group, for whatever reason I fancy to include myself in a religious paradigm. My "house of Israel" lineage to Ephraim is just as fanciful. Everyone is "Ephraim" by the same criteria. And at the same time I can be a "Jedi, Muslim, Teenage, Mutant, Ninja Buddhist"....

[thesometimesaint]

Ancient DNA can be used to determine skin pigmentation, eye color, hair color, etc. If you read the BofM carefully, you will find that the curse is symbolic self-marking, or a curse of character. The Bible actually uses the same type of vocabulary to refer to character.

That's news to me. TTBOMK skin color genes cluster in differing groups by populations. So it is a social construct and not the genes themselves that are use to determine skin color. Eye color is also is not directly traceable to genetics. IE; I have hazel colored eyes.There is only one gene for eye color, Brown. There is no Hazel eye color gene. Hair color is more closely associated with population dynamics than genetics. We all have all three genes that control hair color. It is their expression that can vary, and those tend to cluster by population. While some few individuals hair gets darker with age. In the vast majority of us our hair will turn gray then white. If we live long enough.

I agree that the Bible is the source for white being pure and black/scarlet being impure/unrighteous. I believe it is more cultural that Europeans, and by extension those of European ancestry here in the US, have assigned that distinction to skin color.

[bcuzbcuz]

Although you seem to mistakenly understand Joseph as all-knowing and infallible, Joseph Smith and his friends early on never gave such matters any thought, and certainly knew nothing of genetic inheritance. On the other hand, they were certainly excited when they saw the work of Stephens & Catherwood, and with good reason: This was the first time that a civilization had been discovered which could be attributed to Book of Mormon times. Any vision shown to Joseph by Moroni would certainly have entailed just such a high culture.

I've never claimed (anywhere) to put Joseph on a pedestal. I just expect things he said and that were recorded to be taken for what they actually represent. When he claimed he was addressing Lamanites, he believed they were Lamanites. Otherwise, one would have to believe he was just a charlatan who made up srories as he went along. He definitely had the gift of gab. He could enthrall his public with stories of buried giants, Lamanite warriors and visions. As he travelled around he pointed out Adam on de Ondi, and the white Lamanite, Zelph.

[Tacenda]

I've never claimed (anywhere) to put Joseph on a pedestal. I just expect things he said and that were recorded to be taken for what they actually represent. When he claimed he was addressing Lamanites, he believed they were Lamanites. Otherwise, one would have to believe he was just a charlatan who made up srories as he went along. He definitely had the gift of gab. He could enthrall his public with stories of buried giants, Lamanite warriors and visions. As he travelled around he pointed out Adam on de Ondi, and the white Lamanite, Zelph.

Conversations in his day were much more exciting than our day. Without t.v. or "the movies" the story telling was all they had to entertain one another. I'm not well read but remember great poets, and authors of his day or before, and they were phenomenal with words. Edited May 31, 2013 by Tacenda

[bcuzbcuz]

Conversations in his day were much more exciting than our day. Without t.v. or "the movies" the story telling was all they had to entertain one another. I'm not well read but remember great poets, and authors of his day or before, and they were phenomenal with words.

I agree. I've seen actor presentations of both Mark Twain and Charles ****ens and they both, in their time, regaled audiences with their stories and their story telling. Modern day TV and movies entertain with pictures; car chases and things exploding. Dim-witted thrill seeking,IMO. Being lifted through the gift of words into the adventures of another person's mind is almost a lost art.

Every once and awhile, though, if you get a chance, go to a story teller's convention. Lean back in your seat, close your eyes and listen to an adventure from the front row seat of your own mind. Story telling still exists, but you have to look for it.

[Robert F. Smith]

has there been any DNA studies of America's Mulungeon people and the Lamanites.

Yes, on the Melungeons:

http://www.huffingto..._n_1544489.html .

Edited June 3, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert F. Smith, on 29 May 2013 - 10:02 PM, said:

Although you seem to mistakenly understand Joseph as all-knowing and infallible, Joseph Smith and his friends early on never gave such matters any thought, and certainly knew nothing of genetic inheritance. On the other hand, they were certainly excited when they saw the work of Stephens & Catherwood, and with good reason: This was the first time that a civilization had been discovered which could be attributed to Book of Mormon times. Any vision shown to Joseph by Moroni would certainly have entailed just such a high culture.

I've never claimed (anywhere) to put Joseph on a pedestal. I just expect things he said and that were recorded to be taken for what they actually represent. When he claimed he was addressing Lamanites, he believed they were Lamanites. Otherwise, one would have to believe he was just a charlatan who made up srories as he went along. He definitely had the gift of gab. He could enthrall his public with stories of buried giants, Lamanite warriors and visions. As he travelled around he pointed out Adam on de Ondi, and the white Lamanite, Zelph.

Far from putting him on a pedestal, you digged him a pit in order to tar & feather him with the false status of omniscient and infallible as a red herring with which to lambaste him (yeh, mixed metaphors, so sue me). I explained in reasonable terms what should be expected from any normal assessment of such claims. In order to reach your silly conclusions you must first ignore what is understood by nearly everyone in that day about the meaning of the word "Lamanite" and then extrapolate from that folkloric definition and Joseph's all-knowing status (which he never claimed) to the conclusion that he was not much more than a great carnival barker or snake oil salesman.

[Robert F. Smith]

So JS quoting "the Lord" in the first person refers to "the Lamanites" repeatedly in the D&C, and they are merely a minuscule portion of the Amerinds IDed as Lamanites? That is very post-genetics apologia, imho. Without any genetics intruded upon D&C references to "Lamanites" and the "land/borders of the Lamanites", there would not be the slightest beginning of any doubt who the "Lamanites" were/are. But they are not Jews, any more than they are Europeans. Any trace of DNA of either is accidental after c. two millennia, genetic drift and bottlenecks, and the spread of "Israel" throughout the entire Earth. At this point, any further IDing of Amerinds as "Lamanites" is merely rhetorical and I might as well call myself a "Lamanite" too, or a "Zoramite" or any other "ite" that I choose, based on nothing more than figurative IDing with a society or group, for whatever reason I fancy to include myself in a religious paradigm. My "house of Israel" lineage to Ephraim is just as fanciful. Everyone is "Ephraim" by the same criteria. And at the same time I can be a "Jedi, Muslim, Teenage, Mutant, Ninja Buddhist"....

By falsely restating what I said, any teenage ninja turtle Beast, can come up with a self-serving statement which ignores population genetics.

The concept is really quite simple: Among humans, although a region may be dominated for milliennia by one common and dominant gene pool, there will always be some genetic spillover to nearby regions. Over time, that phenomenon will lead to a minuscule amount of genetic material being communicated to other regions. Without real geographic barriers, this has long been true planetwide. There is nothing strange or apologetic about it. It is just a fact, even though it interferes with your simplistic and false notion that the word "Lamanite" can only refer to full-blooded Lamanites. If you were less naive, you wouldn't make such statements. Southerton's reasons are more meretricious.

Edited June 3, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

That's news to me. TTBOMK skin color genes cluster in differing groups by populations. So it is a social construct and not the genes themselves that are use to determine skin color. Eye color is also is not directly traceable to genetics. IE; I have hazel colored eyes.There is only one gene for eye color, Brown. There is no Hazel eye color gene. Hair color is more closely associated with population dynamics than genetics. We all have all three genes that control hair color. It is their expression that can vary, and those tend to cluster by population. While some few individuals hair gets darker with age. In the vast majority of us our hair will turn gray then white. If we live long enough.

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

Was news to me too when I read about it not so long ago: “What Did Our Ancestors Look Like? Hair and Eye Color Can Be Determined for Ancient Human Remains,” ScienceDaily.com, Jan 11, 2013, online at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130113201136.htm . Via HinsPlex DNA analysis. From a new study published in BioMed Central’s open access journal Investigative Genetics (2013), by Jolanta Draus-Barini, Susan Walsh, Ewelina Pospiech, Tomasz Kupiec, Henryk Glab, Wojciech Branicki and Manfred Kayser.

[thesometimesaint]

Learn some thing new every day. I agree that those remains are old. It seems a valid technique for up to 800 years. But we'd really have something if they could work for remains nearly three millennia old.

Not sure how applicable it would be to the Lehites however.

[nosmelone]

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."

Most Navajo have no problem with being desendents from Asiatic sources. I have family that are traditional and progressive Navajo and neither of them deny it. The Hopi on the other hand are a loose conglamorate of clans most of which came from the south (Mesoamerica) and that goes for most Pueblo as far as I know. Their ancestors are the Anasazi, Hohokam, and Mogollon can all be traced as migrators. I find it interesting though that there are many parallels that can be found between these civilizations and those found in the BOM. From the spiritual beliefs including interesting correlations to the LDS temple ceremony to the horrific including war,kidnapping and even cannibalism.

[Johnnie Cake]

Wouldn't it be wonderful if the church could produce even 1 (one) confirmed descendant of Lehi?

[Danzo]

Wouldn't it be wonderful if the church could produce even 1 (one) confirmed descendant of Lehi?

confirmed by whom?

[thesometimesaint]

Wouldn't it be wonderful if the church could produce even 1 (one) confirmed descendant of Lehi?

Wouldn't it be wonderful if the detractors could produce even 1(one) confirmed descendant of Joseph Smith that was not also from Emma?

[Johnnie Cake]

confirmed by whom?

Oh let's say a randomly selected independant board of genetic scientist...

Edited June 3, 2013 by Johnnie Cake

[Johnnie Cake]

Wouldn't it be wonderful if the detractors could produce even 1(one) confirmed descendant of Joseph Smith that was not also from Emma?

Congratualtions...you're the winner of todays "Red Herring" award for best attempt at a diversionary tactic...