Could The Lamanites Really Have Disappeared

[thesometimesaint]

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

Heavens it has been nearly 800 years for that one ancestor. Less than 200 years should be a piece of cake.

[Chronos]

Johnny, drop the snark.

~Chronos

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Johnnie Cake said:

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

DNA studies of ancient human remains (aDNA) might be very useful, although Johnnie Cakes seems to misunderstand what the LDS Church does and does not do. While individual scientists might concern themselves with studying aDNA in various places throughout the Americas, they do not do so under Church auspices or direction, and are certainly not directed to find Lehi's descendants. The LDS Church does not fund such endeavors. So much for Johnnie Cakes' most recent red herring.

A great deal of work on aDNA is going forward presently, nearly all of it by non-Mormons uninterested in Book of Mormon claims. That means no poisoning of the wells in this process, which is still in its scientific infancy. And such efforts are not limited to a mere 800 years, somtimesaint, as the full genome of animals and humans tens of thousands of years old can now be reconstructed.

http://www.livescience.com/22836-genome-extinct-humans-denisovans.html .

http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/5001/1/Ancient_Genome_sequence.pdf .

http://www.schusterlab.com/PDFs/miller_Nature_2008.pdf .

http://members.chello.nl/jperk/Cooper_et_al.,_2001.pdf .

Ancient Israelite DNA can be recovered in ancient Canaan/Israel, as can the DNA of various ancient peoples in Mesoamerica. Since Lehi was a Manassite, I would expect the DNA of him and his kinfolk to fit pretty well into a typical Israelite genome. The same applies to descendants of Mulek and his companions (even if some of them were closely related Phoenicians-Canaanites).

[Questing Beast]

There are always the "genetic drift/shift" and "bottlenecks" to hide behind. The Church and the BoM are eternally safe behind that barrier of ignorance, because no amount of future DNA research will disprove "Israelite" inclusion in the ancient Americas. "Israelite" DNA (whatever that will be shown to be later) is included in every people on the planet by now....

[thesometimesaint]

There are always the "genetic drift/shift" and "bottlenecks" to hide behind. The Church and the BoM are eternally safe behind that barrier of ignorance, because no amount of future DNA research will disprove "Israelite" inclusion in the ancient Americas. "Israelite" DNA (whatever that will be shown to be later) is included in every people on the planet by now....

The Book of Mormon itself doesn't refer to DNA in any way. It does refer to religiopolitical divisions of the descendents of one branch of Lehi's family. TTBOMK there is no genetic test for religion or politics.

[crixus]

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

Why should anyone take your opinion on this matter when it contradicts what the Lord's anointed has said in an official capacity (conference)?

[thesometimesaint]

No one has to believe a word I say. Please don't just take my word for it. But if you want substantiation for my opinion here is what the Church says. http://www.lds.org/s.../26.33?lang=eng

TTBOMK that verse has never been repealed. SEE http://www.mormonnew...cle/race-church

SEE http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/racial-remarks-in-washington-post-article

Also SEE http://speeches.byu....iewitem&id=1570

Edited June 4, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[crixus]

But that scriptural reference doesn't substantiate your opinion on this matter. You said the curse had nothing to do with skin color and nothing in the Book of Mormon negates this. But since you're attention is on the Book of Mormon, maybe you can tell me is the Church ever repealed this verse:

"And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites."- 3 Nephi 2:15

So the Mormon scripture got it wrong, and so did a century of official pronouncements by the Church?

After all, Spencer W. Kimball spoke in an official capacity as Apostle, and never "repealed" this doctrine once he became the Prophet. In 1960 he stood up in Conference and explained to the global congregation of Mormons that this was an explicit reference to skin color, and he even provided real life examples:

The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised (2 Ne. 30:6). In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos; five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.

At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl—sixteen—sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents—on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. There was the doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated.

So are you saying President Kimball didn't properly interpret his own scripture? What does that say about his status as a bonafide prophet of the Lord?

It seems to me that either he is right, and a true Prophet, are you are wrong. Otherwise, what's the point of having apostles and prophets if they can't even correctly interpret the scriptures?

What's even more disconcerting about Kimball's talk is that he referenced things he claimed to be true, which obviously aren't (does anyone here really believe Indians have become lighter in skin color as they affiliate more with the Church?). If you say this was just gossip he took for granted, then what does it say when an Apostle of the Lord takes gossip and passes it along to millions of Mormons, as if it were factual, for the purpose of expounding on a Mormon scripture? What makes him any different from any other Protestant preachers who tells stories to entertain his congregation?

[thesometimesaint]

The Church teaches and we believe that there was only one perfect man that ever lived on this earth, and none of us, including the much loved President Kimball, are him.

The Church has a long established process for what it determines are its doctrines.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

[crixus]

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine.

It is when these things are taught in an official capacity, such as conference. If you're telling me conference is just a bunch of opinions that could very well be wrong, then why waste any time listening to them?

A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church.

But it is only your opinion that their teachings are opinion in these instances. Nowhere has the Church "repealed" (your word) these doctrines.

With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications.

What you describe isn't divine inspiration. What you describe sounds like the run-of-the mill religion led by business like people who have no special insight on relevant issues. I thought Mormonism was supposed to be different, in that it had apostles and prophets that spoke directly with God? That way we won't have to be led astray and tossed to a fro with every whim of doctrine? It is the duty of prophets and apostles to teach us what the scriptures say. If they can't even get that part right, why trust anything they claim to have received from "revelation"?

This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

So you are saying President Kimball took the Book of Mormon out of context? Is that something we should expect from God's anointed? Are you saying a century's worth of LDS leaders have taken it out of context as well? And who says it has been taken out of context, the apologists? Keep in mind that your "Newsroom" release doesn't "repeal" anything specific to this issue. But even if it did, how do we know it isn't just an opinion piece written by the Church's public relations team?

The Church has a long established process for what it determines are its doctrines.

If that is true, then why are you referencing a Newsroom piece from 2007, which doesn't say anything about how doctrines are determined? Instead it spends quite a bit of time explaining things that aren't doctrines.

In any event, this notion of "official doctrine" is a modern apologetic tool that has nothing to do with the real definition of doctrine. By definition, doctrine is something that has been taught and established over a period of time. You can't just turn a century of established teachings on their head and say, "Oh that's not binding anymore," simply because it has become the socially/politically expedient thing to do in a race-sensitive time. The way modern apologists have scrambled to redefine doctrine in ways that exempts them from any official LDS teachings they can't defend, is really something else.

[thesometimesaint]

It is when these things are taught in an official capacity, such as conference. If you're telling me conference is just a bunch of opinions that could very well be wrong, then why waste any time listening to them?

But it is only your opinion that their teachings are opinion in these instances. Nowhere has the Church "repealed" (your word) these doctrines.

What you describe isn't divine inspiration. What you describe sounds like the run-of-the mill religion led by business like people who have no special insight on relevant issues. I thought Mormonism was supposed to be different, in that it had apostles and prophets that spoke directly with God? That way we won't have to be led astray and tossed to a fro with every whim of doctrine? It is the duty of prophets and apostles to teach us what the scriptures say. If they can't even get that part right, why trust anything they claim to have received from "revelation"?

So you are saying President Kimball took the Book of Mormon out of context? Is that something we should expect from God's anointed? Are you saying a century's worth of LDS leaders have taken it out of context as well? And who says it has been taken out of context, the apologists? Keep in mind that your "Newsroom" release doesn't "repeal" anything specific to this issue. But even if it did, how do we know it isn't just an opinion piece written by the Church's public relations team?

If that is true, then why are you referencing a Newsroom piece from 2007, which doesn't say anything about how doctrines are determined? Instead it spends quite a bit of time explaining things that aren't doctrines.

In any event, this notion of "official doctrine" is a modern apologetic tool that has nothing to do with the real definition of doctrine. By definition, doctrine is something that has been taught and established over a period of time. You can't just turn a century of established teachings on their head and say, "Oh that's not binding anymore," simply because it has become the socially/politically expedient thing to do in a race-sensitive time. The way modern apologists have scrambled to redefine doctrine in ways that exempts them from any official LDS teachings they can't defend, is really something else.

Not even if said in General Conference makes it doctrine for the Church. They are just a bunch of opinions. Until approved unanimously by the Church.

Those opinions can just as easily be right. Until you've prayed about it and received confirmation from God.

My opinions are backed up by the express statements by Church leaders confirmed by Common Consent in General Conference.

You have heard of Common Consent?

God doesn't make sock puppets. We and our mortal leaders are just as subject to sin and error as is common to man. We each are entitled to our own opinions, and ideas.

The difference is that we really do believe in Prophets, Seers, and Revelators. That they do received divine revelation from God for the whole Church. That as individuals we can and do receive revelation from God confirming their statements.

President Kimball isn't here to defend himself. However there is nothing in LDS Scripture that demands that everything he ever said is revelation from God, or even correct. I forgive him for his sins and shortcomings, and hope that God will forgive me mine. BTW Peter, the proclaimed Apostle of God in the Bible, publicly denied Christ three times. Was he an Apostle of God?

I'm not an apologist. I am but a lowly member of the Church with his own ideas, opinions, and beliefs. If I am wrong and often I am . Then my own shortcomings are my own and not representative of the Church.

Because it is succinct. It does repeal the false idea that somehow everything/anything any leader of the Church has ever said is automatically doctrine for the Church.

I asked you before if you know what Common Consent means in the Church?

See

D&C 26:2. The Law of Common Consent

Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained that “administrative affairs of the Church are handled in accordance with the law of common consent. This law is that in God’s earthly kingdom, the King counsels what should be done, but then he allows his subjects to accept or reject his proposals. Unless the principle of free agency is operated in righteousness men do not progress to ultimate salvation in the heavenly kingdom hereafter. Accordingly, church officers are selected by the spirit of revelation in those appointed to choose them, but before the officers may serve in their positions, they must receive a formal sustaining vote of the people over whom they are to preside. (D. & C. 20:60–67; 26:2; 28; 38:34–35; 41:9–11; 42:11; 102:9; 124:124–145.)” (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 149–50.)

Not only are Church officers sustained by common consent, but this same principle operates for policies, major decisions, acceptance of new scripture, and other things that affect the lives of the Saints (see D&C 26:2).

Really? Are you building an arc in you back yard? Do you eat ham and cheese sandwiches? Clothes made of differing materials? All those and more were at one time doctrines of the Church. If you don't follow them. Why not?

[guerreiro9]

(does anyone here really believe Indians have become lighter in skin color as they affiliate more with the Church?).

Involvement with the church requires you to spend a lot of time indoors attending meetings. One unintended consequence of this is the fact that your skin will be lighter due to less exposure to the sun. Also as you begin to wear more modest clothing, more parts of your body will have less exposure to the sun which will indeed cause them to be lighter. So the honest truth is there probably were some Native Americans who experienced some lightening of their skin due to involvement with the church.

-guerreiro9

Edited June 5, 2013 by guerreiro9

[ERayR]

Involvement with the church requires you to spend a lot of time indoors attending meetings. One unintended consequence of this is the fact that your skin will be lighter due to less exposure to the sun. Also as you begin to wear more modest clothing, more parts of your body will have less exposure to the sun which will indeed cause them to be lighter. So the honest truth is there probably were some Native Americans who experienced some lightening of their skin due to involvement with the church.

-guerreiro9

Good one.

[thesometimesaint]

Involvement with the church requires you to spend a lot of time indoors attending meetings. One unintended consequence of this is the fact that your skin will be lighter due to less exposure to the sun. Also as you begin to wear more modest clothing, more parts of your body will have less exposure to the sun which will indeed cause them to be lighter. So the honest truth is there probably were some Native Americans who experienced some lightening of their skin due to involvement with the church.

-guerreiro9

[Calm]

Conference talks involved a lot more than doctrine unless you want claim personal stories, letters, statistics and other such stuff equates to doctrine.

Edited June 5, 2013 by calmoriah

[volgadon]

Conference talks involved a lot more than doctrine unless you want claim personal stories, letters, statistics and other such stuff equates to doctrine.

Or endless quotes of the same trite Wordsworth piece.

[ERayR]

Or endless quotes of the same trite Wordsworth piece.

Oh I don't know. I kind of like that Wordsworth piece.

[Calm]

Oh I don't know. I kind of like that Wordsworth piece.

But it can get tiring hearing just the one small segment of it repeated.

I find the whole more meaningful than just that verse. http://www.bartleby.com/101/536.html

Edited June 5, 2013 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

But it can get tiring hearing just the one small segment of it repeated.

I find the whole more meaningful than just that verse. http://www.bartleby.com/101/536.html

Oh I agree and it has been quite some time since I read it.

[volgadon]

But it can get tiring hearing just the one small segment of it repeated.

I find the whole more meaningful than just that verse. http://www.bartleby.com/101/536.html

That is my issue exactly. Not only is it tiring hearing the exact same quote, it starts to feel affected and loses its impact. It seems that in the past 30 years, if an English romantic poet is quoted, it must be Wordsworth. If it is Wordsworth, then it must be from his Ode on Intimations of Immortalty. If the Ode, then it must unvaryingly be that quote.

[brightpath]

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.

I believe it is more than just pockets. Joseph Smith met with tribes where ever he moved to up until his murder. JS met with tribes from NY, OH, MO, IA, IL, WI and Brigham Young continued this with the plains tribes all the way to Utah. He personally sent Jacob Hamlin to the Navajos, Paiutes, and Hopi Indians to teach the Lamanites about the BofM. So I guess JS and Brigham Young knew who the Lamanites were. On this thread are we saying that Gentile scientists kmow more than our own prophets even Joseph Smith.

Edited June 6, 2013 by brightpath

[thesometimesaint]

Yes.

[ERayR]

I believe it is more than just pockets. Joseph Smith met with tribes where ever he moved to up until his murder. JS met with tribes from NY, OH, MO, IA, IL, WI and Brigham Young continued this with the plains tribes all the way to Utah. He personally sent Jacob Hamlin to the Navajos, Paiutes, and Hopi Indians to teach the Lamanites about the BofM. So I guess JS and Brigham Young knew who the Lamanites were. On this thread are we saying that Gentile scientists kmow more than our own prophets even Joseph Smith.

I have an idea that Brigham sending Jacob Hamblin to meet with the Indian tribes and his own meetings with them were more of a pragmatic nature. It is much more productive to be at peace with them than fighting them.

[thesometimesaint]

Agreed.

[Questing Beast]

Until the MMM put paid to BY's hubris, he taught/asserted that the "Lamanites" were the "battle ax of the Lord", and similar polemical language. There is no question that all Native Americans were seen by JS, BY, et al. the early Saints and leaders, as "Lamanites" without distinctions....