Could The Lamanites Really Have Disappeared

[volgadon]

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.

I'm actually descended on my mother's side from Jacob Hamblin. His missions were both practical and spiritual in nature, but then again, the churches ideology in those days emphasised that mundane acts such as digging water ditches served no less salvific purposes as ordinances.

[Kevin Christensen]

SNIP

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?

As an exercise, draw a box with Alma's the younger's name on it. Then go through his writings and see where he describes his inputs and his outputs. If it turns out that there is only one input, the infallible word of God, and only one output, the infallible word of God, then this kind of frantic dismay might be justified. If, as it happens to be the case, Alma the Younger has obviously reports many different kinds of inputs, and many different kinds of outputs, the source of the crisis is not with Apostle Kimble's humanity but with your expectations.

The Book of Mormon itself argues that on some matters a prophet might suppose he understood, and not ask, and therefore not receive revelation (see 3 Nephi 15:15-23 on the matter of other sheep). Even revelation may not be all-encompassing. Nephi says of Lehi's experience of a vision, "so much was his mind swallowed up in other things that he beheld not the filthiness of the water" (1 Nephi 15:27). Nephi writes of himself "And now, if I do err, even they did err of old" (1 Nephi 19:6).

Alma is especially instructive on the nature and extent and sources for prophetic knowledge:

Now as to this thing I do not know. . . . But behold, the Spirit hath said this much unto me. (Alma 7:8-9)

Now I unfold unto you a mystery; nevertheless, there are many mysteries which are kept, that no one knoweth them save God himself. But I show unto you one thing which I have inquired diligently of God that I might know. . . . Now when this time cometh no one knows. . . . Now, whether there shall be one time, or a second time, or a third time, . . . it mattereth not; for God knoweth all things; and it sufficeth me to know in this case . . . what becometh of the souls of men is the thing which I have inquired diligently to know; and this is the thing of which I do know. . . . Behold it has been made known unto me by an angel. . . . Now, whether . . . I do not say; let it suffice, that . . . I do not say that . . . but behold, I give it as my opinion." (Alma 40:3-5, 9, 11, 19-20)

If our own scriptures explicitly declare that church leaders, including prophets, can and do make mistakes, then getting upset because they do not perform like Divine Sock Puppets at all times is a problem in the eye of the beholder. D&C 1, I've often noticed gamely attempts to correct the mistaken expectation by declaring of LDS leaders that "inasmuch as they erred it shall be made manifest," and explains that knowledge is not to be taken for granted, but comes "inasmuch as they sought wisdom, they might be instructed."

Elder Kimble sometimes had opinions that he later changed in consequence of seeking further wisdom. Notably in 1978. This, it seems to me is the sort of behavior that the scriptures would lead me to expect.

And D&C 1 does not restrict inspiration or revelation to LDS leaders. After confirming that the Lord had spoken to Joseph Smith, he mentions unspecified "others," and later affirms that he is "no respecter of persons but is willing to make these things known unto all flesh."

D&C 1 also does a very good job of explaining what the point of having Apostles is, despite their expected humanity.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited June 7, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[brightpath]

Brigham Young did not meet with the Lamanites because they were a problem. He met and sent missionaries to then such as Jacob Hamblin to convert them and fulfill the BofM promise of taking the gospel and BofM to the Lamanites so they will know who they truly are.

[canard78]

As an exercise, draw a box with Alma's the younger's name on it. Then go through his writings and see where he describes his inputs and his outputs. If it turns out that there is only one input, the infallible word of God, and only one output, the infallible word of God, then this kind of frantic dismay might be justified. If, as it happens to be the case, Alma the Younger has obviously reports many different kinds of inputs, and many different kinds of outputs, the source of the crisis is not with Apostle Kimble's humanity but with your expectations.

If our own scriptures explicitly declare that church leaders, including prophets, can and do make mistakes, then getting upset because they do not perform like Divine Sock Puppets at all times is a problem in the eye of the beholder. D&C 1, I've often noticed gamely attempts to correct the mistaken expectation by declaring of LDS leaders that "inasmuch as they erred it shall be made manifest," and explains that knowledge is not to be taken for granted, but comes "inasmuch as they sought wisdom, they might be instructed."

Elder Kimble sometimes had opinions that he later changed in consequence of seeking further wisdom. Notably in 1978. This, it seems to me is the sort of behavior that the scriptures would lead me to expect.

And D&C 1 does not restrict inspiration or revelation to LDS leaders. After confirming that the Lord had spoken to Joseph Smith, he mentions unspecified "others," and later affirms that he is "no respecter of persons but is willing to make these things known unto all flesh."

D&C 1 also does a very good job of explaining what the point of having Apostles is, despite their expected humanity.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

I love Alma2's willingness to speculate. Whenever I read something a little 'far-fetched' from the early LDS leaders I have to remind myself one of my favourite BoM prophets was willing to guess too.

The fact that there is so little speculation from leaders these days is probably a reaction to those who take every word that falls from a prophets lips to be the literal, immediate word and will of God. Either that or those who take that speculation and twist it out if context to use against them.

[canard78]

Brigham Young did not meet with the Lamanites because they were a problem. He met and sent missionaries to then such as Jacob Hamblin to convert them and fulfill the BofM promise of taking the gospel and BofM to the Lamanites so they will know who they truly are.

You really think the Indians in Utah are/were Lamanites? How about the natives in Polynesia? Lamanites too? (I've never been able to work that one out, given it was Hagoth the Nephite who set sail.

[Questing Beast]

All by his lonesome? I think Hagoth's companions came from across the "racial" spectrum....

[ERayR]

All by his lonesome? I think Hagoth's companions came from across the "racial" spectrum....

So do you have crew and passenger list?

[canard78]

All by his lonesome? I think Hagoth's companions came from across the "racial" spectrum....

He probably stopped via Asia to pick up some mariners.

[nealr]

I know this is an old thread, and people have already hashed it out on this, but I contacted Ugo Perego about Southerton's blogpost in the OP back when the discussion was still going, and he just recently replied. I thought some here might be interested in getting his opinion.

Hello Neal. I did not forget about your request. Just being busy doing actual science in population genetics, rather than blogging about things that are not pertaining to my field of work (pun intended). Anyways, I read Southerton's blog and it is nothing new. I have actually published on autosomal DNA from Native American groups and looking for AIMs together with a team of researchers at the UofU (seehttp://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/22606979). I am also very familiar with ancient DNA studies on homind species such the Neanderthal. In my article for Robert Millet's book "No Weapon Shall Prosper" (http://rsc.byu.edu/a...y-inherited-dna) I clearly state that the same population genetic principles that govern uniparental markers such as the male inherited Y chromosome and the maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA, also apply to any other genetic systems. Southerton is simply insisting on a matter that he already know to be interpreted incorrectly but that he does not want to admit he has been wrong about it from its start.

Lastly, it is curious to me that he uses the Neanderthal example to prove his point when there are three major points that actual support what we have been saying all along with regard of the impossibility to test the hypothesis of finding Lehi's party DNA among modern Native American populations.

First, we KNOW what the Neanderthal DNA looks like because we have been able to discover bones belonging to them from which DNA was extracted and analyzed. Such DNA was then compared to modern humans. We have two sets of DNAs (Neanderhtal and Homo Sapiens) that can be compared to answer specific questions. Do we have the DNA of Lehi or of any member of his family to make a comparison with modern populations? We are talking about apples and oranges here.

Second, Neanderthal genes have been found at a frequency of 1-4% in modern humans. Although scientists are still debating about its meaning, the point is that NO modern humans DNA was found in the Neanderthal genome. Therefore, is it possible that, in the possibility that Neanderthals and modern humans interbred, that some genes were successful in perpetuating to modern times and their are found in modern humans, but that given an equal opportunity to mate, no modern humans DNA made it to the Neanderthal genomes? What I am saying here is simply that in the case of actual crossbreeding between the two species, one group was successful in propagating their DNA, while the other ones wasn't. So DNA does disappear.

The last consideration comes from the author of the paper on Neanderthal DNA. They make the following statement that has some interesting implications when it comes to thinking about the genetic dynamics of a small group like the one Lehi brought to the Americas "…we detect gene flow from Neandertals into modern humans but no reciprocal gene flow from modern humans into Neandertals. Although gene flow between different populations need not be bidirectional, it has been shown that when a colonizing population (such as anatomically modern humans) encounters a resident population (such as Neandertals), even a small number of breeding events along the wave front of expansion into new territory can result in substantial introduction of genes into the colonizing population…” (Green, et al. "A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome" Science May 2010, Vol 328, p.721). What they are saying is that new groups have a great disadvantage with regard to DNA survival to future generations when meeting and mating with a population that has been already "selected" for that particular environment. The genes of the small group of Lehis in a place where millions of other people have been already established there for thousands of year did not stand a chance to make it to the present day. Remember, we are not talking survival of the species or cultural impact here. It is simply a biological principles. You don't pass half of your DNA to your children, but that does not mean that you or they are going to die. It is simply a matter of natural selection for the most fit genes and that of statistics where the group is just to small to make a dent into the existing genepool.

I don't know if you ever read this 2005 letter to Sunstone by Blake Ostler. I think it is still very much to the point of the real issue and of what is driving Southerton for the past 15 years. I love this statement by Ostler "Southerton follows this by nonsensically arguing that we must reject the historicity of the Book of Mormon not because of what the text says, but because of what many Latterday Saints have believed about it."

Feel free to use these comments as you please. Ciao, Ugo

[Helen47]

I have let Simon know about this. I reread B H Roberts book and I think similar problems with the LGT as he found with the HGT.

[cdowis]

FWIW, I was corresponding with Southerton shortly after he started blathering on how he had proven the BOM false. I pointed out to him this basic flaw in his logic about Lehi's DNA, rather than using "Jewish DNA".

He had no answer then, so I guess he is still working on it.

Edited July 6, 2013 by cdowis

[Helen47]

interesting

[ERayR]

The apologetic that the Lehi and Mulekite colonies shared the promised land with Asiatic populations is wishful thinking and seriously flawed. Apologists like Nibley once denied the Asiatic origin of Native Americans. Now that DNA has nailed it down apologists want to contort the Book of Mormon to make it fit. It all adds up to another excuse for not coming up with the evidence.

CFR that Nibley denied Asiatic origins of native Americans. In an article entitle The World of the Jaradites (I think that is the name) he makes a case for the Jaradites coming by way of Asia,

[halconero]

Just being busy doing actual science in population genetics

I loved this line from the reply!! Loved it, loved it, loved it.

I'm a lowly undergrad, but more than half of my course load deals with Population Genetics in one way or another, from basic biology to the effects that Economy, Urbanization, Migration and even Religion have on Population Genetics.

Either Southerton has a poor understanding with regards to population genetics or simply ignores it.

If we are looking for a genetic "Lamanite Race" good luck with that. You'll have just as much luck looking for a "Black," "White," "Asian," or "Latino" genetic race. In the last 80-90 years scientists moved away from racial genetics after repeated testing that there are virtually no genetic markers that can distinguish one race from another. If you put two black Africans in a room with a Nordic European one of them is more likely to be related to the European than the other Black African.

The other thing to consider when looking for Lamanites/Nephites in America is the repeated examples throughout history where the names of a particular socio-cultural group vary.

Example:

There was a socio-political group which existed from Late-Antiquity to the Renaissance in the areas known today as Greece, Cyprus, Turkey and Bulgaria (among others). They called them selves the Roman Empire, Western Europe called them the Kingdom of the Greeks, and the Turks themselves rejected the idea that they were the true inheritors of the Roman legacy and claimed for themselves the title "Seljuk Sultanate of Rum (Rome), and that we ourselves refer to them as the Byzantines.

So, when we look for Lamanites in America we have to realize that we don't know exactly what they called themselves, what amerindian groups called them, or what future generations would call them. A fun example of where WE have done this in the Book of Mormon is the Mulekites. When we hear that name most of us immediately think of that group the Nephites found after leaving from the South. The Book of Mormon, however, never calls them Mulekites. They are referred to as "The People of Zarahemla," we just infer that, since they were led by a man named Mulek hundreds of years earlier, that they must be called Mulekites

Taking it even further, there is evidence within the Book of Mormon that even before Christ's appearance in the Americas the term "Nephite" was a political, religious, and cultural label all at once that referred to a group that also self-identified themselves by the names of their ancestors. We rarely here the name that the Lamanites used to refer to themselves or to the Nephites, and when we do it is usually from the perspective of a Nephite. It would be like Marco Polo using Italian expressions to refer to the Chinese civilization and then commenting on how the Chinese viewed them using Italian expressions as well.

Then consider language drift (Moroni himself says that what they called "Hebrew" was not even in the same Hebrew that Lehi and his family spoke), influenced by an overwhelming population of amerindians. We don't know if linguistically the titles used to refer to the government, religion, or cultural practices of the Lamanites, from an outside perspective changed over a millenia in the Book of Mormon, but it is not that much of a leap to assume so.

So, if we take the considerations provided by population genetics, foreign-labeling, and language drift I am not surprised in the least that we haven't pegged down a "Lamanite" group.

It's been roughly 185 years since the Book of Mormon. The Archaeological, Genetic, and Linguistic theories and techniques that we used today have only been developed in the past ~100 years, and its studies in Ancient America are a barely touched issue when compared to Old World studies.

Edited July 6, 2013 by halconero

[halconero]

I'm not saying that it's impossible, but that we have to take into account questions such as:

Who is a Nephite/Lamanite?

What did others call Nephites/Lamanites?

What did they call themselves/what did others call them after 250 years/500 years/1000 years. Why?

Where did they live?

What was the original population genetics like? What genetic gene pool mixed in over 250/500/1000 years?

These are all questions that create an awesome, great, glorious mess to sort through.

[Questing Beast]

...

So, if we take the considerations provided by population genetics, foreign-labeling, and language drift I am not surprised in the least that we haven't pegged down a "Lamanite" group.

It's been roughly 185 years since the Book of Mormon. The Archaeological, Genetic, and Linguistic theories and techniques that we used today have only been developed in the past ~100 years, and its studies in Ancient America are a barely touched issue when compared to Old World studies.

I keep saying this, but "the Lord" knew perfectly well who the "Lamanites" are in the 1830s. Throughout the D&C "Lamanites" are simply Native Americans, all of them. There is no "Lamanite group" to identify, because in JS's day the understanding was from the Lord himself, that Native Americans are "Lamanites"....

[Glenn101]

The Lamanites could have disappeared just as easily, maybe even more so than the "Lost" tribes of Israel. God has hidden them away somehow, despite efforts by Christians to ascertain just where they are.

Glenn

[Questing Beast]

The "Lamanites" were not hidden in JS's day, and they were already living in Utah territory before the Mormons arrived. So says the Lord in the D&C, and so said BY, et al. the GAs in the 1850s....

[Helen47]

http://simonsoutherton.blogspot.com.au/

Interesting information

[bu11fr0g]

The "Lamanites" were not hidden in JS's day, and they were already living in Utah territory before the Mormons arrived. So says the Lord in the D&C, and so said BY, et al. the GAs in the 1850s....

But you don't get to interpret what it means to be a Lamanite. Most Mormons consider themselves natural Israelite, but the amount of Israelite DNA is minimal. The same may be applied to Lamanites. But the Lord considers all of the descendants of Abraham to be his seed regardless of how diluted it is.

[bu11fr0g]

http://simonsouthert...logspot.com.au/

Interesting information

There is something really rotten about this Encyclopedia, but Wiley did pick it up. It has a boatload of poor authors.

Here is the listing of Southerton's credentials:

Simon Southerton is a principal research scientist in the CSIRO Division of Plant Industry, Canberra. His research focuses on the study of genetic variation in forest trees and he has coauthored about 40 research papers in the field of plant molecular genetics. He is the author of Losing a Lost Tribe (2004) which explores widely held Mormon beliefs regarding the origins of Native Americans in light of recent genetics research.

This is hardly someone you would want for a chapter in a legitimate scientific encyclopedia.

[brightpath]

The Lamanites are alive and well friends! They are patiently waiting the prophecies of the BofM to come true. Lamanites are not Asians and when The Jaredites, Lehi, and Mulekites landed in The Americas they were no Asians here. After Israel rejected the gospel in America the Gentile invasion started. God allowed the Gentiles to invade The Americas after 421 AD. Prior to this nothing!

[Calm]

The Lamanites are alive and well friends! They are patiently waiting the prophecies of the BofM to come true.

And what is the geography of the Promised Land where the prophecies will take place?

[brightpath]

Geography does not matter! The only thing you need to do is acknowledge that there are Lamanites in the land of the Americas. If there are no Lamanites then the BofM would cease to be true. The BofM is their record and is their history. The prophecies are and will be fulfilled according to their Shepard Jesus Christ.

Edited August 7, 2013 by brightpath

[bu11fr0g]

@brightpath: are youbeing sarcastic and why are you putting these comments in? What are you trying to do?