ALarson Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 I was reading over the newest essay released by the church newsroom and realized they don't even use the word "Lamanites" in it. Why not? I'm struggling with this newest essay but I'm the first to admit that I have not extensively read up on all of the DNA issues with the Book of Mormon. I'm trying to become more knowledgeable about this subject. Wasn't the Book of Mormon written FOR the Lamanites? (Quote below is from the title page of the Book of Mormon): Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites—Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentile But if I understand what is in this essay, it states that the "the Book of Mormon peoples" are basically unidentifiable and that we really have no chance of figuring out who they are. Why not use the word "Lamanites" at all in this essay? Especially when it states that's exactly who the Book of Mormon was written for (along with Jew and Gentile)? I have other questions, but that's one I'd like to discuss and get some input on from others here.
The Nehor Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 The Church is soon going to announce that the Lamanites migrated south and are living in Antarctica pretending to be penguins. Either that or they used Book of Mormon people instead to be more inclusive of non-Lamanite Book of Mormon people.Take your pick. 2
thesometimesaint Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Think of it like this MB. MDD is here primarily for the LDS to share ideas, but everyone is gets to read it.
ALarson Posted February 3, 2014 Author Posted February 3, 2014 And what about all the temple dedicatory prayers? Here are just a few examples (there are many, many more): Dedicatory Prayer given by Spencer W. Kimball at the Mesa Arizona Temple: Thou didst acknowledge the role of the Lamanite, especially in this temple, and numerous of the sons and daughters of Lehi have found in these sacred precincts peace, knowledge and solace to their souls. ... We are grateful, our Father, that in these years have come to this temple numerous of Thy beloved Indian people of many tribes in their newly discovered way of life. Many children of Lehi have traveled long distances from other lands at great expense and sacrifice, especially in the borders of old Mexico, and numerous families have been welded together for eternity. Dedicatory Prayer given by James E. Faust in 2000 at the Tuxtla Gutierrez Mexico Temple: "We invoke Thy blessings upon this nation of Mexico where so many of the sons and daughters of Father Lehi dwell." Dedicatory Prayer given by Thomas S. Monson in 2000 at the Villahermosa Mexico Temple: "May Thy eternal purposes concerning the sons and daughters of Lehi be realized in this sacred house. May every blessing of the eternal gospel be poured out upon them, and may the suffering of the centuries be softened through the beneficence of Thy loving care."
Palerider Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 (edited) And what about all the temple dedicatory prayers? Here are just a few examples (there are many, many more): After having been here for awhile and having listened to many of the apologetic responses given here, I've come to understand that even though these are dedicatory prayers, in the end they are still just general authorities giving their prayerful opinions and not to be taken as "doctrinal" or speaking for the Lord or revelatory in any way. Just good men givin' their opinions........ Edited February 3, 2014 by Palerider
ALarson Posted February 3, 2014 Author Posted February 3, 2014 After having been here for awhile and having listened to many of the apologetic responses given here, I've come to understand that even though these are dedicatory prayers, in the end they are still just general authorities giving their prayerful opinions and not to be taken as "doctrinal" or speaking for the Lord or revelatory in any way. Just good men givin' their opinions........Yes, I've heard that explanation before. But where does that leave us with how we are supposed to listen to the words of our current Prophets, Seers and Revelators and follow them? Are they just good men giving their opinions which will be thrown out in years to come?
Freedom Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Yes, I've heard that explanation before. But where does that leave us with how we are supposed to listen to the words of our current Prophets, Seers and Revelators and follow them? Are they just good men giving their opinions which will be thrown out in years to come? Yes. And what is wrong with listening to the opinions of good men? From time to time, church leaders express opinions that may not be entirely correct. We are learning the doctrines of salvation, if the history they invoke may be flawed, this has no effect on the principles being expressed.
Freedom Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 I was reading over the newest essay released by the church newsroom and realized they don't even use the word "Lamanites" in it. Why not? I read an article in the ensign about the church in Russia and I realized that they don't even use the word 'Lamanite' here either. Why not? My jaw just dropped.
The Nehor Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 And what about all the temple dedicatory prayers? Here are just a few examples (there are many, many more):What about them?
The Nehor Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 After having been here for awhile and having listened to many of the apologetic responses given here, I've come to understand that even though these are dedicatory prayers, in the end they are still just general authorities giving their prayerful opinions and not to be taken as "doctrinal" or speaking for the Lord or revelatory in any way. Just good men givin' their opinions........No, those are accurate. You and the OP are giving your opinions. Whether you are "good" is open for debate. 1
ALarson Posted February 3, 2014 Author Posted February 3, 2014 (edited) What about them?Aren't they contradictory to this new essay? In my mind, they seem to be. If these places are filled with Lamanites and sons and daughters of Lehi, etc., then can't their DNA be tested? The essays claim there is none available to test. Edited February 3, 2014 by ALarson
Palerider Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Yes, I've heard that explanation before. But where does that leave us with how we are supposed to listen to the words of our current Prophets, Seers and Revelators and follow them? Are they just good men giving their opinions which will be thrown out in years to come? Excellent question. As I recall the church has stated (in essence) that the only source one can look to as solid "doctrine" are the four standard works. But then they go and change them around as well when it seems to suit their needs. So my opinion is that "doctrine" for the LDS faith, is whatever the current prophet says it is on that particular day. Oh the joys of an "open canon" 1
Freedom Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Aren't they contradictory to this new essay? In my mind, they seem to be. If these places are filled with Lamanites and sons and daughters of Lehi, etc., then can't their DNA be tested? The essays claim there is none available to test.How about this perspective - if the 10 tribes were scattered, and their population numbered in the hundreds of thousands, why can't we find them through DNA testing?
Palerider Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 No, those are accurate. You and the OP are giving your opinions. Whether you are "good" is open for debate. Sorry if I didn't write that clearly enough for you or maybe that your reading skills aren't up to speed today, but I wasn't stating that the OP and I were "good men" I was stating that the GA's were good men giving their opinions. Try reading it that way...........
Palerider Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 (edited) How about this perspective - if the 10 tribes were scattered, and their population numbered in the hundreds of thousands, why can't we find them through DNA testing? They are scattered and maybe no one has tried yet........Eh? There is a tribe of ethnically black Africans who have claimed for years that they were desendants of the Jews and they were tested a couple of years ago and they came through with flying colors. They had heavy Jewish markers even though they are as black as any African you have ever seen. The DNA testing proved that they were indeed of Jewish descent. Here's a link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/israel/familylemba.html Actually, Israelite blood seems easy to find..........if it's there in the first place......... Edited February 3, 2014 by Palerider 2
ALarson Posted February 3, 2014 Author Posted February 3, 2014 How about this perspective - if the 10 tribes were scattered, and their population numbered in the hundreds of thousands, why can't we find them through DNA testing? That does nothing to answer my question. Let's try this again (and notice that this question has absolutely nothing to do with the 10 tribes): According to past and current Prophets, there are hundreds of Lamanites living today. In other words, contrary to what is stated in this new essay, we CAN find them. Why not test THEIR DNA? 1
The Nehor Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Aren't they contradictory to this new essay? In my mind, they seem to be. If these places are filled with Lamanites and sons and daughters of Lehi, etc., then can't their DNA be tested? The essays claim there is none available to test.No, because knowing there are Lamanites does not mean you know which are which.Sorry if I didn't write that clearly enough for you or maybe that your reading skills aren't up to speed today, but I wasn't stating that the OP and I were "good men" I was stating that the GA's were good men giving their opinions. Try reading it that way...........I was disagreeing and saying that you were just giving your opinion about their statement being opinion and that I was unsure whether it was an opinion from a "good man".Try reading it that way...........
The Nehor Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Why not test THEIR DNA?To compare to what exactly?
ALarson Posted February 3, 2014 Author Posted February 3, 2014 Actually, Israelite blood seems easy to find..........if it's there in the first place.........This. Again, according to our current and past Prophets, there are lands filled with Lamanites or sons & daughters of Lehi. Why not test their DNA? Why state that there are no descendants of Lehi available to test when they've been identified for us by our Prophets? 1
ALarson Posted February 3, 2014 Author Posted February 3, 2014 To compare to what exactly?What? To confirm if those identified by our Prophets as Lamanites are descendants of Lehi. Are you saying that we don't know the genealogy of Lehi? If we are to believe what President Spenser W. Kimball, he stated that there were 60 million Lamanties living in the Pacific and the Americas.
Freedom Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 They are scattered and maybe no one has tried yet........Eh? There is a tribe of ethnically black Africans who have claimed for years that they were desendants of the Jews and they were tested a couple of years ago and they came through with flying colors. They had heavy Jewish markers even though they are as black as any African you have ever seen. The DNA testing proved that they were indeed of Jewish descent. Here's a link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/israel/familylemba.html Actually, Israelite blood seems easy to find..........if it's there in the first place.........Nobody has tried? Your kidding right? DNA is tested in every cultural group all over the world. No Israelite blood found.
Freedom Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 That does nothing to answer my question. Let's try this again (and notice that this question has absolutely nothing to do with the 10 tribes): According to past and current Prophets, there are hundreds of Lamanites living today. In other words, contrary to what is stated in this new essay, we CAN find them. Why not test THEIR DNA?According to the opinion of SOME prophets, their direct descendants are living today. according to many others, they were a small group. According to the official church position, they were a small group and the term lamanite is a political title, not genetic. There is no doctrine on who the lamanites are and the current Book of Mormon indicates that they are simply among the ancestors but not the only ancestor.
california boy Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 I am the first to admit that I am a bit removed from the church these days. But I have to say, I am quite shocked by the church essay. These are statements that are completely in conflict with the years of teaching I had growing up that the American Indians were Lamanites. There was no question then that indians were the direct descendants of Lehi. And the thought that they were just a small part of the general population is completely foreign to what I was taught growing up. Was I the only one receiving these teachings by the church? It kinda sounds like it from some of the comments on this thread.
Freedom Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 What? To confirm if those identified by our Prophets as Lamanites are descendants of Lehi. Are you saying that we don't know the genealogy of Lehi? If we are to believe what President Spenser W. Kimball, he stated that there were 60 million Lamanties living in the Pacific and the Americas. But since new research has come out, we now know that Pres Kimball was wrong. Moses was wrong about insects, Matthew was wrong about mental illness, Kimball was wrong about the lamanites. Of course, since the book of mormon makes it clear that the Lamanites were a political group and not a genetic group, there are millions of lamanites out there. A lamanite is simply a person who is not a Nephite.
ALarson Posted February 3, 2014 Author Posted February 3, 2014 According to the opinion of SOME prophets, their direct descendants are living today. according to many others, they were a small group. According to the official church position, they were a small group and the term lamanite is a political title, not genetic. There is no doctrine on who the lamanites are and the current Book of Mormon indicates that they are simply among the ancestors but not the only ancestor. Ok. So we are to just follow "SOME prophets"? Thanks for clarifying what you were attempting to state earlier. And, if there's "no doctrine on who the lamanites are" then all that has been stated and written on them by past and current Prophets (starting with Joseph Smith) is to be ignored now? Um...ok.
Recommended Posts