The Nehor Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 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.Or the current Native Americans are descendants of both the other immigrants with Asian DNA mutations AND of Lehi.The DNA testing shows no such thing. It shows what the surviving DNA mutations (haplogroups) are. If you mix haplogroups in an intermarrying group it is possible and over time even likely that one will overwhelm the other. Most people alive almost certainly have a descendent from all or almost all of the haplogroups we use to study genetic drift and migrations. We are more likely to find the one more of our ancestors had.If an ancestor of mine living in what is now Germany in 1000 AD married someone from China or subsaharan Africa or a Native American and their descendants all married white caucasians then the odds are VERY good that I will not be part of that haplogroup if my DNA were tested. There is an outside chance of course but not likely. That does not mean they are not my ancestor. In the same way Native Americans may have bred out Lehi's haplogroup mutation but that does not make Lehi not their ancestor. One of many ancestors of course. 3
Palerider Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 There is zero reason to be insulting to get your point across....stop it. Thank you. I agree.
ALarson Posted February 3, 2014 Author Posted February 3, 2014 He already posted that Lehi was of Manasseh. He's using "Jewish" as a generic term, albeit technically, incorrrectly.Correct.
Palerider Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Actually there are reasons. God does it. Fortunately, you're not Him.............
The Nehor Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 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"Thou fool, this night shall thy conclusions based on misunderstandings of genetics leading my little one astray be required of you."See, perfectly comparable.
The Nehor Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Fortunately, you're not Him...................................yet.......Dun Dun Duuuuuuuuuuuun 1
Buzzard Posted February 3, 2014 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.First hint: Within a few decades of arriving and splitting up, the Nephites and Lamanites were having wars. Wars require a certain number of men to prosecute, unless every single one of the wives of Nephi, Sam, and their siblings has a dozen sons, who each had a dozen more, etc...I picked up on this in High School in the 70's, asked my Seminary teacher, who had heard of the idea already and agreed with me. So if it's revisionist, it's revisionist of long standing. 3
ALarson Posted February 3, 2014 Author Posted February 3, 2014 (edited) Or the current Native Americans are descendants of both the other immigrants with Asian DNA mutations AND of Lehi.Then the DNA results would show this. They don't. You keep dancing around the facts trying to spin them to support what you hope and wish were true. You need to simply accept the facts here and maybe try to redefine who you previously believed the Lamanites were and go from there. I think that angle is helping many with this new essay. Edited February 3, 2014 by ALarson
Palerider Posted February 3, 2014 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."-- Spencer W. Kimball, "Of Royal Blood," Ensign, July 1971 ALarson!!! You're confusing us with the facts! 1
stemelbow Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 "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? Revelation is about inspiring people to do that right thing--help us learn to Love Him, and others. No doubt there will always be msitakes of men creeping into everything we do. Clearly we view it differently.
Palerider Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 ......................yet.......Dun Dun Duuuuuuuuuuuun I'm glad you have a sense of humor......
Calm Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 (edited) --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.My genealogy has Jews in it, my DNA is unlikely to as it was my great-great-great-great grandfather, he was from Germany, and the line is through several sons but at least one female (his daughter) to me and he was not a Cohen.To those who have an issue with finding no Mannaseh DNA at this point in the science...I have documentation I am a descendant of Jews, if my DNA doesn't show any Jewish markers does this mean in your view I do not have a Jewish great-great-great-great grandfather? Edited February 3, 2014 by calmoriah 3
ALarson Posted February 3, 2014 Author Posted February 3, 2014 (edited) First hint: Within a few decades of arriving and splitting up, the Nephites and Lamanites were having wars. Wars require a certain number of men to prosecute, unless every single one of the wives of Nephi, Sam, and their siblings has a dozen sons, who each had a dozen more, etc...I picked up on this in High School in the 70's, asked my Seminary teacher, who had heard of the idea already and agreed with me. So if it's revisionist, it's revisionist of long standing. But what then, how do you interpret this? 2 Nephi 1:8-9 "And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance. Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever. And this quote from Jeffery R. Holland?: Such a special place needed now to be kept apart from other regions, free from the indiscriminate traveler as well as the soldier of fortune. To guarantee such sanctity the very surface of the earth was rent. In response to God’s decree, the great continents separated and the ocean rushed in to surround them. The promised place was set apart. Without habitation it waited for the fulfilment of God’s special purposes. With care and selectivity, the Lord began almost at once to repeople the promised land. The Jaredites came first, with stories of the great flood fresh in their memories and the Lord’s solemn declaration ringing in their ears: “Whoso should possess this land of promise, from that time henceforth and forever, should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fullness of his wrath should come upon them.” (Ether 2:8.) Edited February 3, 2014 by ALarson 1
Freedom Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 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. More correclty, told by Kimball. Now, it is sound doctrine to say that the natives of North America are descendants of the lamanites. The lamanites are all that were not Nephite. Kimball was wrong, and new information from archaeology and biology has shown that he is wrong. He interpreted the book of mormon from a flawed premise, in the same way that some past church leaders made erroneous statements about African Americans.
Palerider Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 First hint: Within a few decades of arriving and splitting up, the Nephites and Lamanites were having wars. Wars require a certain number of men to prosecute, unless every single one of the wives of Nephi, Sam, and their siblings has a dozen sons, who each had a dozen more, etc...I picked up on this in High School in the 70's, asked my Seminary teacher, who had heard of the idea already and agreed with me. So if it's revisionist, it's revisionist of long standing. Second hint: Unless the guy who's writing the story isn't all that well aquainted with population growth stats and just pulls those wars out of his....hat.
Freedom Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 But what then, how do you interpret this? And this quote from Jeffery R. Holland?:The Book of Mormon, has as been explained to you, advised that other 'nations' will not be made aware of this land. Clearly other people came here, but the nations from which they originated were not made aware. Holland, clearly, is wrong.
Palerider Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Revelation is about inspiring people to do that right thing--help us learn to Love Him, and others. No doubt there will always be msitakes of men creeping into everything we do. Clearly we view it differently. So Joseph going on about Kolob and all that extra-curricular stuff he felt inclined to call revelation, is just helping us to love God more? Yes, I think we do see it differently. 1
ALarson Posted February 3, 2014 Author Posted February 3, 2014 Holland, clearly, is wrong. Ok, thanks.
Palerider Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 My genealogy has Jews in it, my DNA is unlikely to as it was my great-great-great-great grandfather, he was from Germany, and the line is through several sons but at least one female (his daughter) to me and he was not a Cohen.To those who have an issue with finding no Mannaseh DNA at this point in the science...I have documentation I am a descendant of Jews, if my DNA doesn't show any Jewish markers does this mean in your view I do not have a Jewish great-great-great-great grandfather? Have you been tested though? Do you know that you do not test for any semitic markers?
The Nehor Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Then the DNA results would show this. They don't. You keep dancing around the facts trying to spin them to support what you hope and wish were true. You need to simply accept the facts here and maybe try to redefine who you previously believed Lamanites were and go from there. I think that angle is helping many with this new essay.No, the DNA results would not in the same way If there was a family legend that an ancestor of mine back in 1000 AD married a native Australian a DNA test would almost certainly not confirm this. There is an outside chance (1% would be very generous) that it would but it is very unlikely.I am not spinning the facts. You are ignorant about them. What is worse is that you are sharing your ignorance. I have seen misunderstandings much smaller then this aid in people exiting the faith. The "little ones" who are struggling with weak faith or doubts. Millstone...neck...sea.I want to be clear that this DNA evidence does not of course prove that Lehi is an ancestor. It is not even evidence for it. With the assumption that Lehi's party interbred with the Jaredites or other survivors it is what we should expect to see. It does show us what were most likely the dominant haplogroups in the past. This means that people of that lineage were very likely to be more numerous then those of whatever haplogroups Lehi, Ishamael, and the Mulekites were a part of.
stemelbow Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 So Joseph going on about Kolob and all that extra-curricular stuff he felt inclined to call revelation, is just helping us to love God more? Yes, I think we do see it differently. You mean the BoA? Sure. It's about trying to teach us to deal with God and people appropriately, I'd say. I wouldn't call it inerrant, if that's your feeling on the matter.
ALarson Posted February 3, 2014 Author Posted February 3, 2014 My genealogy has Jews in it, my DNA is unlikely to as it was my great-great-great-great grandfather, he was from Germany, and the line is through several sons but at least one female (his daughter) to me and he was not a Cohen.To those who have an issue with finding no Mannaseh DNA at this point in the science...I have documentation I am a descendant of Jews, if my DNA doesn't show any Jewish markers does this mean in your view I do not have a Jewish great-great-great-great grandfather?Hi calmoriah! That's very interesting. Have you had your DNA tested?
The Nehor Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 But what then, how do you interpret this? And this quote from Jeffery R. Holland?:It was kept from the knowledge of other nations. There were no colonization efforts from overseas at the time. No Old World civilizations coming in force to explore, exploit, or conquer. The proviso is that those who would come to the land would be led by God. The Jaredites, Mulekites, and Lehites were. There may very well have been others. I expect there were. 1
Calm Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Then the DNA results would show this. .CFR please...I believe there is an Icelandic study where it has been demonstrated a number of known individuals who had many descendants do not now show any of their DNA markers in the current population, their DNA in other words has been lost while other ancestors' DNA has survived. I will find and link to it in a bit...might lose this post if I try to first.On what grounds are you insisting that Lehi's markers would survive?
Palerider Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 The Book of Mormon, has as been explained to you, advised that other 'nations' will not be made aware of this land. Clearly other people came here, but the nations from which they originated were not made aware. Holland, clearly, is wrong. I hope you'll mention that to him next time you see him.
Recommended Posts