David T Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 (edited) BoM is big on a particular concept of remnant theology. In the context of the Book of Mormon's overall story, Lamanites are inherently children of the covenant who, following recieving a divine inheritence, eventually fell, were scattered and forgot and/or had corrupted their covenant identity. In that regards, all children of Heavenly Father who have not yet been reunited back into the covenant are Lamanites. The Book of Mormon is the New Covenant - those who accept its message and are baptized are given a specific tribal Israelite identity, and see themselves grafted back into the Family Olive Tree. Just as how it was revealed in the end portion of the Book of Mormon that the terms Nephite and Lamanite took on adoptive covenant roles rather than genetic lineage markers. If you want to break it down even more, in light of the threefold 'Jews' 'Gentiles' and 'Lamanites', to be the Jewish Community, other non-Christians, and then non-LDS Christians. One perspective might be argued that the book is specifically written for 'separated' Christians. Edited February 3, 2014 by David T 1
thatjimguy Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Is this the "getting it right" story you are taling about? If not, can you give a link to the article?
thatjimguy Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Actually there are reasons. God does it. Feel free to message me your rationale behind that one and add how it helps the church grow.
stemelbow Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Is this the "getting it right" story you are taling about? If not, can you give a link to the article? https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng Is this what you wanted?
ALarson Posted February 3, 2014 Author Posted February 3, 2014 Again this assumes that Lehi had "Jewish" DNA. We can track some mutations but that does not mean the DNA markers/mutations we have traced to Israelite lineage had become universal or almost universal in that population by 600 BC.They still woudn't have been Asian and that's what the Lamanite DNA origin is.. You can spin and insult all you want, but that's the truth. All that's left is trying to spin who the Lamanites actually were or weren't. If we go by statements from our past and current Prophets, they were very specific regarding who they were. Now we're told they were mistaken. Those are the facts.
The Nehor Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Feel free to message me your rationale behind that one and add how it helps the church grow.Behind that particular insult or evidence that God insults people?The rationale behind using that insult was the flippancy shown by my honorable opponent. He was asking silly questions to make my points look ridiculous. Basically it was a veiled insult. I prefer open insults to veiled ones as while insults are usually bad adding dishonesty to them makes them worse.My rationale may have been faulty but there it is.
Palerider Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 No, because knowing there are Lamanites does not mean you know which are which.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........... Oh, you're breaking my heart........
ALarson Posted February 3, 2014 Author Posted February 3, 2014 The rationale behind using that insult was the flippancy shown by my honorable opponent. He was asking silly questions to make my points look ridiculous.You really don't need any help with that. You're doing just fine on your own. I've been very civil and wanted to openly discuss this. No flippancy, just facts and reason. Sorry, if you feel that causes you to look ridiculous as that certainly is not my intention.
stemelbow Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 That's not the point. Either the Lamanites are descendants of the Jewish Lehi or they aren't. It doesn't matter whether or not they understood DNA testing years ago. What matters is that we do now and it isn't supporting what has been written and spoken about the Lamanites by our past and current Prophets who speak to God. Surely God understands the complicated DNA stuff, right? The Lamanite DNA is of Asian ancestry. That contradicts what we've been taught. This essay is really causing doubts and questions (at least with many active Mormons I've discussed it with). I think you're viewing this all in ways I am not. Oh well. "Lamanite" may refer to many things. It's a word. I don't think it is intended, and wasn't in the past, to necessarily link people with common DNA ancestry. Indeed if it so happened in 568 AD those that could trace their DNA back to Lehi were all finally killed, we'd have nothing to work with to identify Book of Mormon people through DNA. In your mind it seems this is all very neat. It's easy, in your view, with all our modern perspective in place, to identify what we would expect to see in Lehi's DNA. If not trace of it is found among modern Native Americans, then we have a problem. On the flip, for me, I'd say we have just tons of questions that aren't easily resolvable. One of which, can we really claim to be able to identify Lehi's DNA and know what to expect in modern descendants? 1
Palerider Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Nobody has tried? Your kidding right? DNA is tested in every cultural group all over the world. No Israelite blood found. I believe the link I just gave you proves that false. 1
thatjimguy Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Behind that particular insult or evidence that God insults people?The rationale behind using that insult was the flippancy shown by my honorable opponent. He was asking silly questions to make my points look ridiculous. Basically it was a veiled insult. I prefer open insults to veiled ones as while insults are usually bad adding dishonesty to them makes them worse.My rationale may have been faulty but there it is. More along the lines where God insults people.
The Nehor Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 They still woudn't have been Asian and that's what the Lamanite DNA origin is.. You can spin and insult all you want, but that's the truth. All that's left is trying to spin who the Lamanites actually were or weren't. If we go by statements from our past and current Prophets, they were very specific regarding who they were. Now we're told they were mistaken. Those are the facts.Unless the haplogroups that ended up dominating came from Bering Strait travelers and/or Jaredites in which case they should definitely be Asian. That does not take away Lehi as an ancestor. It just means that one DNA mutation ended up dominating another which happens all the time. 3
daz2 Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 My understanding is that essentially all native Americans today would share at least a portion of the DNA of any native American who was alive 2000 years ago and has living descendants. In that sense, then all native Americans are descendants of Lehi. The odds are, in fact, that all of us are descendats of Lehi (and of Cain and of Abraham). The point of the church's article is that we don't know which particular genetic markers Lehi's group had. Moreover, it would be easy for some of those markers to be submerged over time--in the same way it might be difficult for some of us to find Jewish genetic markers in our own genes, even though all of us have Jewish ancestry. 3
The Nehor Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 More along the lines where God insults people."But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?"Only direct quote I remember off the top of my head. 1
ALarson Posted February 3, 2014 Author Posted February 3, 2014 (edited) My understanding is that essentially all native Americans today would share at least a portion of the DNA of any native American who was alive 2000 years ago and has living descendants. In that sense, then all native Americans are descendants of Lehi. The odds are, in fact, that all of us are descendats of Lehi (and of Cain and of Abraham). The point of the church's article is that we don't know which particular genetic markers Lehi's group had. Moreover, it would be easy for some of those markers to be submerged over time--in the same way it might be difficult for some of us to find Jewish genetic markers in our own genes, even though all of us have Jewish ancestry.You seem to forget that the essay states there were many other Native Americans living here thousands of years prior to when the Book of Mormon people arrived. We could be ancestors of them and not of Lehi. And what about Adam and Eve? Are we talking pre-Adamites here? What we do know is that the Indians or Native Americans were told over and over again by our leaders and Prophets that they were the descendants of Lehi. The available DNA testing now shows this to be false. Edited February 3, 2014 by ALarson
Palerider 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. No, you're not the only one at all. As I recall Parley P. Pratt and others were called by Joseph to go and teach "Lamanites" in Indian territory west of Missouri. From Church History: "Joseph Smith received another revelation, in which Peter Whitmer Jr. was called to accompany his brother-in-law Oliver Cowdery. The Lord directed him to “open thy mouth to declare my Gospel” and to “give heed unto the words & advice of thy Brother” who had been given power “to build my Church among thy Brethren the Lamanites”5 (see D&C 30:5-6). The following month, October 1830, Parley P. Pratt and Ziba Peterson were also called to go “into the wilderness among the Lamanites.” To aid them in this challenging assignment, the Lord promised that he would “go with them and be in their midst." But as many of the apologists here have stated in essence, "Nothing that you were taught growing up has any significance when dealing with issues that have arisen today. Everything in the past is subject to re-definition and, as one poster here keeps telling me, "you just need to get over it."
stemelbow Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 My understanding is that essentially all native Americans today would share at least a portion of the DNA of any native American who was alive 2000 years ago and has living descendants. In that sense, then all native Americans are descendants of Lehi. The odds are, in fact, that all of us are descendats of Lehi (and of Cain and of Abraham). The point of the church's article is that we don't know which particular genetic markers Lehi's group had. Moreover, it would be easy for some of those markers to be submerged over time--in the same way it might be difficult for some of us to find Jewish genetic markers in our own genes, even though all of us have Jewish ancestry. As per the bolded portion: Can't see how we can conclusively state that. 1
thatjimguy Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 "But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?"Only direct quote I remember off the top of my head. Yeah. Read that parable in Luke 12:13. Got the funniest feeling the tone was much different than the one you are flying with. http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/luke/12?lang=eng http://biblehub.com/nlt/luke/12.htm
stemelbow Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Unless the haplogroups that ended up dominating came from Bering Strait travelers and/or Jaredites in which case they should definitely be Asian. That does not take away Lehi as an ancestor. It just means that one DNA mutation ended up dominating another which happens all the time. Makes sense
ALarson Posted February 3, 2014 Author Posted February 3, 2014 No, you're not the only one at all. As I recall Parley P. Pratt and others were called by Joseph to go and teach "Lamanites" in Indian territory west of Missouri. From Church History: "Joseph Smith received another revelation, in which Peter Whitmer Jr. was called to accompany his brother-in-law Oliver Cowdery. The Lord directed him to “open thy mouth to declare my Gospel” and to “give heed unto the words & advice of thy Brother” who had been given power “to build my Church among thy Brethren the Lamanites”5 (see D&C 30:5-6). The following month, October 1830, Parley P. Pratt and Ziba Peterson were also called to go “into the wilderness among the Lamanites.” To aid them in this challenging assignment, the Lord promised that he would “go with them and be in their midst." But as many of the apologists here have stated in essence, "Nothing that you were taught growing up has any significance when dealing with issues that have arisen today. Everything in the past is subject to re-definition and, as one poster here keeps telling me, "you just need to get over it."And there are also statements like this:
Palerider Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 (edited) First of all, I am not a DNA expert. I read what others have written, I try to understand it, I am reasonably intelligent, that's about all I'll claim.So, with large grains of salt, here is my .02:It's obvious to anyone who reads the BOM that the peoples there lived among others, and probably were a semi-distinct people, but over the centuries, interbred with those other people. And why would one suppose that the American civilization after the visit of Christ was ONLY comprised of Lehi's descendants? The calamities described in 3rd Nephi would have befallen the entire civilization, not just a small discrete group. And for hundred of years after, the BOM tells us there were no "ites",, giving more ample opportunities for genetic dilution. After this era, "Lamanites" referred to the wicked group, not a particular ethnicity. It's reasonable to assume that more Lehites self-identified as Nephites during the time that ended with their near destruction, after which 1400 more years of mixing whatever remnant was left with other populations were left. And yet, there are still some traces of Eurasian DNA in American populations.One final thought. As the church has become established in Mongolia, it's my understanding that 11 of the 12 tribes of Israel have been identified through Patriarchal Blessings. Interesting. So perhaps, just perhaps, East Asian DNA = Israelite DNA, just not tribe of Judah or Levi/Living in Jerusalem at time of Christ DNA.I'm sure someone will come on here to shoot this down, but the more I look at DNA, the more ambiguous it seems, and the more I agree with Elder Oaks. I frankly think that both LDS and anti-LDS make big mistakes trying to "prove" the Book of Mormon true or false via imperfect science, be it DNA, Archaeology, or other disciplines. "It's obvious to anyone who reads the BOM that the peoples there lived among others, and probably were a semi-distinct people, but over the centuries, interbred with those other people." I disagree. I think if one were to read the BofM without the outside influence of revisionist apologists, one would come to the conclusion that the Lamanites and Nephites (and possibly one lonely mulekite) were the only civilizations existing in the Americas. Edited February 3, 2014 by Palerider 1
ALarson Posted February 3, 2014 Author Posted February 3, 2014 Sorry, here's the quote: "Not until the revelations of Joseph Smith, bringing forth the Book of Mormon, did any one know of these migrants. It was not known before, but now the question is fully answered. Now the Lamanites number about sixty million; they are in all of the states of America from Tierra del Fuego all the way up to Point Barrows, and they are in nearly all the islands of the sea from Hawaii south to southern New Zealand. The Church is deeply interested in all Lamanites because of these revelations and because of this great Book of Mormon, their history that was written on plates of gold and deposited in the hill. The translation by the Prophet Joseph Smith revealed a running history for one thousand years-six hundred years before Christ until four hundred after Christ-a history of these great people who occupied this land for that thousand years. Then for the next fourteen hundred years, they lost much of their high culture. The descendants of this mighty people were called Indians by Columbus in 1492 when he found them here."
ALarson Posted February 3, 2014 Author Posted February 3, 2014 "It's obvious to anyone who reads the BOM that the peoples there lived among others, and probably were a semi-distinct people, but over the centuries, interbred with those other people." I disagree. I think if one were to read the BofM without the outside influence of revisionist apologists, one would come to the conclusion that the Lamanites and Nephites (and possibly one lonely mulekite) were the only civilizations existing in the Americas.I agree. Perfectly stated. 1
Palerider Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 I'd expect them to be wrong about some of this stuff. How could they possibly not? DNA analysis to determine origins of people looks to be pretty complicated stuff. "How could they possibly not"...? I thought that was what direct revelation was all about. Not getting it wrong. And if they weren't sure they were right, why were they saying anything at all?
Palerider Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Except Lehi wasn't Jewish. He was from Manesseh, so a different mother. Isn't it Mitochondrial DNA from the mother that survives? We don't know the lineage of Zoram, I thought the lineage of Ishmael was stated, but couldn't find it via a quick perusal of 1st Nephi.You see why it's perhaps not so cut and dry after all? He already posted that Lehi was of Manasseh. He's using "Jewish" as a generic term, albeit technically, incorrrectly.
Recommended Posts