Calm Posted August 7, 2013 Posted August 7, 2013 brightpath has a unique focus on things Lamanite and tends to include it anywhere possible in the threads.
canard78 Posted August 7, 2013 Posted August 7, 2013 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.GlennGlenn that's laughably lame In 1978 one of the apostles was still talking about the Native Americans as Lamanites. Even giving the reason why they have dark skin:WALTERS: Is there still a tendency to feel that people are born with black skin because of some previous situation, or do we consider that black skin is no sign anymore of anything inferior in any sense of the word?RICHARDS: Well, we don't want to get that as a doctrine. Think of it as you will... Now the Church's attitude today is to prefer to leave it until we know. The Lord has never indicated that black skin came because of being less faithful. Now, the Indian; we know why he was changed, don't we? The Book of Mormon tells us that; and he has a dark skin, but he has a promise there that through faithfulness, that they all again become a white and delightsome people. So we haven't anything like that on the colored thing.http://lds-mormon.com/legrand_richards.shtml (this is not a 'pro-LDS' site, I can't find this interview on BYU.edu etc. I'll happily delete the link if the rest of the website is too offensive)I can understand why today we need the Lamanites to be a "hidden" race, but you and I both know that in our living memory (I'm making some age assumptions) the Lamanites and Native Americans were effectively synonymous.
kassie Posted August 7, 2013 Posted August 7, 2013 Last I knew Nibley was never a Prophet of the Church. His opinions and research are his own. Some are outdated. I have no degree in biomedical science or population genetics and therefore it would be presumptuous of me to claim to have "new information." But I have watched the huge amount of technology available to us now that Nibley did not have access to. His opinion is just that....his opinions. Again, I believe we must place his viewpoint in the history of his time.
ERayR Posted August 7, 2013 Posted August 7, 2013 Glenn that's laughably lame In 1978 one of the apostles was still talking about the Native Americans as Lamanites. Even giving the reason why they have dark skin:http://lds-mormon.co..._richards.shtml (this is not a 'pro-LDS' site, I can't find this interview on BYU.edu etc. I'll happily delete the link if the rest of the website is too offensive)I can understand why today we need the Lamanites to be a "hidden" race, but you and I both know that in our living memory (I'm making some age assumptions) the Lamanites and Native Americans were effectively synonymous.So. And this proves what?
Tacenda Posted August 7, 2013 Posted August 7, 2013 http://simonsouthert...logspot.com.au/Interesting informationI read the article and didn't spot it at first, then I read the comments. Apparently the picture of Sorenson isn't him, that's Nibley. Hopefully Simon reads the comment soon and puts up the real one.
canard78 Posted August 7, 2013 Posted August 7, 2013 Last I knew Nibley was never a Prophet of the Church. His opinions and research are his own. Some are outdated. I have no degree in biomedical science or population genetics and therefore it would be presumptuous of me to claim to have "new information." But I have watched the huge amount of technology available to us now that Nibley did not have access to. His opinion is just that....his opinions. Again, I believe we must place his viewpoint in the history of his time.Who are you replying to? If me, I was quoting an apostle, LeGrand Richards, not Nibley.
canard78 Posted August 7, 2013 Posted August 7, 2013 So. And this proves what?Just a reply to Glenn on the newer idea that: "The Lamanites could have disappeared just as easily, maybe even more so than the "Lost" tribes of Israel. God has hidden them away somehow..."Until very recently the prophets have clearly taught us exactly where the Lamanites are. To now have Glenn try to reverse engineer them into a hidden "10-tribe" in the middle of some forgotten parallel wilderness is, like I said, a bit lame.
stemelbow Posted August 7, 2013 Posted August 7, 2013 Glenn that's laughably lame In 1978 one of the apostles was still talking about the Native Americans as Lamanites. Even giving the reason why they have dark skin:http://lds-mormon.co..._richards.shtml (this is not a 'pro-LDS' site, I can't find this interview on BYU.edu etc. I'll happily delete the link if the rest of the website is too offensive)I can understand why today we need the Lamanites to be a "hidden" race, but you and I both know that in our living memory (I'm making some age assumptions) the Lamanites and Native Americans were effectively synonymous.Why couldn't Richards be wrong just like BY was? Is it really lame to think that past leaders of the Church made declarations that amounted to assumptions based on limited understanding? Its too hard to hold their feet under the fire if they aren't here.
canard78 Posted August 7, 2013 Posted August 7, 2013 Why couldn't Richards be wrong just like BY was? Is it really lame to think that past leaders of the Church made declarations that amounted to assumptions based on limited understanding? Its too hard to hold their feet under the fire if they aren't here.I can never remember believing that North/South America was entirely empty and subsequently populated by only the offspring of Laman, Lemuel and a couple of the sons of Ishmael and their wives. The native americans can still be the descendents of Lamanites and not have the DNA we might expect. It's just a triangle inversion. /\ like this or like this \/. If we take one native american today then he/she has millions of ancestors (like this: \/). Go back a few hundred generations and they have more ancestors than people have ever lived on earth. It doesn't however mean that Lehi/Laman are the origins of all the population of the North/South American continents. I.e. it's not like this: /\ What I meant to Glenn was that we don't have to hide the Lamanites in some mystical "10 tribes" side-alley. They can be both the ancestors of the natives of North/South America and not show up on a DNA test. 2
Johnnie Cake Posted August 7, 2013 Posted August 7, 2013 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!Yeah...Ummm…The Lamanites are alive and well friends! Umm...yeah that’s the ticket… They are patiently waiting the prophecies of the BofM to come true. …Ahhh…Ummmm The Lamanites are not Asians and when The Jaredites, Lehi, and Mulekites landed in The Americas they were no Asians here. …Oh and it gets even better…Ummmm...Ahhh… … 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!...yeah that’s the ticket...You are out.
canard78 Posted August 7, 2013 Posted August 7, 2013 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!"Lamanites are not Asians and when The Jaredites, Lehi, and Mulekites landed in The Americas they were no Asians here. " CFR"After Israel rejected the gospel in America the Gentile invasion started. God allowed the Gentiles to invade The Americas after 421 AD." CFR (do you consider Vikings to be Gentiles?)(Am I just wasting my time...?)
ERayR Posted August 7, 2013 Posted August 7, 2013 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....They are not hidden now. They are camped out in my back yard waiting to come out of hiding.
ERayR Posted August 7, 2013 Posted August 7, 2013 Just a reply to Glenn on the newer idea that: "The Lamanites could have disappeared just as easily, maybe even more so than the "Lost" tribes of Israel. God has hidden them away somehow..."Until very recently the prophets have clearly taught us exactly where the Lamanites are. To now have Glenn try to reverse engineer them into a hidden "10-tribe" in the middle of some forgotten parallel wilderness is, like I said, a bit lame.If you were to say disappeared but not gone I can fully agree.
omni Posted August 7, 2013 Posted August 7, 2013 Are there any statements from our prophets definitevely stating that there were other inhabitants in the Americas during BOM times? Yes, I'm aware of the change of "principal" to "among" in the BoM introduction, but why is it that the apologists are leading the change in thinking on so many of these issues...shouldn't it be our prophets? 1
canard78 Posted August 7, 2013 Posted August 7, 2013 Are there any statements from our prophets definitevely stating that there were other inhabitants in the Americas during BOM times? Yes, I'm aware of the change of "principal" to "among" in the BoM introduction, but why is it that the apologists are leading the change in thinking on so many of these issues...shouldn't it be our prophets?Why didn't the prophets tell us that it was pre-populated? Because they didn't know it was.At the risk of sounding like I'm "switching sides" - I'm coming to terms with the fact that prophets don't work like that. I look for a prophet to teach me how to live today. The history is in the books, the future is unwritten. We have very few specific prophecies of the future. Most are general warnings that are also just general good advice. The warning from President Hinkley to get out of debt was not said as "in 2008 there will be a financial melt-down" it was simply good advice for people who would listen. All economies go in cycles and so it was a fair bit of advice to make hay while the sun shines... or rather not use credit to buy another tractor to get more hay in than is needed and available.I know we call them "prophet, seer and revelator." I've just come to terms with the idea that what I used to think that meant and what it actually really means are two different things. They're still useful in their new 'guise.' 1
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted August 8, 2013 Posted August 8, 2013 Please tell me where the Jebusites and Perrizites went, as well as the Scythians.You are my hero!
omni Posted August 8, 2013 Posted August 8, 2013 Why didn't the prophets tell us that it was pre-populated? Because they didn't know it was.Based on a reading of D&C 28 it sounds like the Lord was just as confused about the issue as our prophets have been.
guerreiro9 Posted August 8, 2013 Posted August 8, 2013 Based on a reading of D&C 28 it sounds like the Lord was just as confused about the issue as our prophets have been.What fraction of Lamanite blood does one need to have in order to be considered a Lamanite? Does every member of a society need to have the same blood line in order for a society to be considered part of a specific group? Perhaps the Lord uses the term Lamanite in the same way the Nephites used it (and the same way he uses Gentiles).I am sure the Lord is not confused, but you seem to have a very specific definition for what it means to be a Lamanite. A definition it appears the Lord does not share.-guerreiro9 2
canard78 Posted August 8, 2013 Posted August 8, 2013 What fraction of Lamanite blood does one need to have in order to be considered a Lamanite? Does every member of a society need to have the same blood line in order for a society to be considered part of a specific group? Perhaps the Lord uses the term Lamanite in the same way the Nephites used it (and the same way he uses Gentiles).I am sure the Lord is not confused, but you seem to have a very specific definition for what it means to be a Lamanite. A definition it appears the Lord does not share.-guerreiro9I remember an odd conversation with an American.Me: "I'm English"Him: "Me too, my great, great grandmother emigrated from England."Me: "Uhh... my great, great grandfather was from Sweden but... Uuh... never mind."I think it's pretty clear that even until very recently the Native Americans were considered Lamanites in a very literal view of race and ancestry. The Richards interview above shows that the Apostles considered the reason for an "Indian's" dark skin to be because of the curse on Laman and Lemuel. Nowadays people seem to take the approach of distancing themselves from that literal perspective and instead creating a case for a diluted DNA, which means they're not really Lamanites at all, just like I'm not Swedish. You could say I have Swedish ancestry but I'm neither racially nor ethnically Swedish. That may be true of the native Americans today. If you could trace every line you might eventually find Lehi entually. But for the Native Americans to be called Lamanites, as they had been for 150 years seems to be a pretty loose definition. I can also see a general category name of all Native Americans/Polynesians being "Lamanites." As in "natives to these continents, not of Causcasian/European parentage." But that doesn't really fit with the descriptions of the D&C and the prophets later. Richards specifically talked about "Indians" of the 1970s having dark skin because of the curse on Laman/Lemuel (which could later change colour through faithfulness). He's not the only one to do so. Or maybe it's better to shuffle it all into myth and legend and just see the promise to the "Lamanites" as a prodigal son alegory. In the end, however far we have fallen (and Moroni 9 has the Lamanites fall a very long way) we are always able to be rescued* and get back towards our progress on the path to godliness. *Insert 'unforgivable sin' clause here.
Calm Posted August 8, 2013 Posted August 8, 2013 Nowadays people seem to take the approach of distancing themselves from that literal perspective and instead creating a case for a diluted DNA, which means they're not really Lamanites at all, just like I'm not Swedish. I don't think it's something that's recent if I understand what you are saying. Even for those who supported the HGT empty before they got here theory there was the understanding while I was growing up that a huge portion of the aboriginals died out due to disease and war and other ethnic groups like the Spaniards and black slaves came over and intermarried with many of those who were left, leaving a few isolated groups as "pure Lamanite". I think BRM talked about this, for example.
Popular Post Brant Gardner Posted August 8, 2013 Popular Post Posted August 8, 2013 Since the Book of Mormon definition of Lamanite ceased to be tribal very early (see Jacob 1:14), the insistence on finding genetic connections seems to be far beyond the point. Lamanite was "not Nephite," and that covers a very wide spectrum. Of course, we have re-established some genetic connection because we associate the term with any people who was in the Americas prior to the European invasion, but that still doesn't change the very expansive Book of Mormon definition. 5
cdowis Posted August 8, 2013 Posted August 8, 2013 (edited) Are there any statements from our prophets definitevely stating that there were other inhabitants in the Americas during BOM times? If you will carefully read the BOM, it tells us that there were inhabitants in the Americas when Lehi landed. Is that sufficient, or do you need modern revelation. Edited August 8, 2013 by cdowis
canard78 Posted August 8, 2013 Posted August 8, 2013 If you will carefully read the BOM, it tells us that there were inhabitants in the Americas when Lehi landed. Is that sufficient, or do you need modern revelation.Out of interest, which verses do you consider to say so?(I'm not saying there isn't as I've been always fine with the pre-populated idea. I think I always presumed that the 'mechanics' of the Lamanite 'curse' was marrying outside of the covenant to natives).
cdowis Posted August 8, 2013 Posted August 8, 2013 (edited) Look up "goat" or "ox". I'm sure you can figure it out from there. Edited August 8, 2013 by cdowis
canard78 Posted August 8, 2013 Posted August 8, 2013 Look up "goat" or "ox". I'm sure you can figure it out from there.Ahah:25 And it came to pass that we did find upon the land of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the *** and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals, which were for the use of men.Does that suggest there were both wild goats and not wild goats... so a domesticated goat?
Recommended Posts