What If There Is No Way To Distinguish A Lamanite

[DBMormon]

One problem that is little discussed regarding the BOM is at least one of the purposes of the Book and it's apparent lack of usefulness any longer.

 

Brent Metcalf (former member) stated recently in an interview what he sees as problems with the historicity. He speaks about a major issue being that the Book Of Mormon sets itself up as an attempt to bring the literal descendants of Lehi back to the gospel. And to bring the ten tribes to a knowledge of their redeemer. We have almost completely abandoned this idea and yet it is engrained in the purpose of the BOM and yet we have no ethnic group who can be determined to be these groups. They simply are dispersed and at best completely not a connected group of people. Hence the BOM seems to fail in one of its designed purposes. We simply can not take any person and say with certainity that "you are a lamanite, and the Book of Mormon is for you"

 

For Example

 

Which is to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations

 

 

How can you show someone something if they can not possibly know if they are part of the group that the book is designed for?

 

or 

 

Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel

 

 

 

Nephi and others are always admonishing his descendants to give ear to the book, but now we acknowledge a lack of certainity of who is lamanite and who is not (we claimed we knew in the past but it was a false assumption)

 

 

But behold, I shall take these plates, which contain these prophesyings and revelations, and put them with the remainder of my record, for they are choice unto me; and I know they will be choice unto my brethren.

 7 And I do this for a wise purpose; for thus it whispereth me, according to the workings of the Spirit of the Lord which is in me. And now, I do not know all things; but the Lord knoweth all things which are to come; wherefore, he worketh in me to do according to his will.

 8 And my prayer to God is concerning my brethren, that they may once again come to the knowledge of God, yea, the redemption of Christ; that they may once again be a delightsome people.

 

This is an issue that will lose people quickly as it is a hard one to dissect but it seems deeply problematic to BOM historicity or at least a major snafoo in how it lays out it's purpose.

Edited September 19, 2014 by DBMormon

[CV75]

One problem that is little discussed regarding the BOM is at least one of the purposes of the Book and it's apparent lack of usefulness any longer.

The book is for everyone, Jew, Gentile, heathen, etc. The Lamanites are included. Some may assume incorrectly that they are or are not a Jew, Gentile, Lamanite, heathen, etc., or they may not know or care, but that won’t change how things turn out if they do what they need to do to realize the promises extended to any particular group mentioned in these scriptures. Sometimes we don’t realize the fulfillment of God's promises, including those that are about where we fit in the scheme of Jew, Gentile, heathen, etc. until it happens.

[bluebell]

I'm really not seeing the problem or issue.

 

Since i was young I've always assumed that the purposes of the book (which you already quoted) would be fulfilled whether or not the person or people involved knew who exactly was a lamanite or one of the lost 10 tribes or not.

 

God knows and the Spirit knows who these people are, and since the BOM is beneficial for everyone (regardless of whether or not they specifically fulfill the stated purpose) it really doesn't matter in the least if such information is possible to discern for us humans.

[Duncan]

The House of Israel is everyone, whether they know it or not, and they are everywhere and so the Church has been proclaiming this for 184 years now. As you start the Book of Mormon it has clear dileneations as to who is Lamanite or not but as you get on in the Book it 's clear to me that that term and what is meant by it is gone. So the original Lamanites by say late  Alma are assimilated into other groups and heck Jesus came after that. There is Samuel THE Lamanite not A Lamanite so he was distinguished from others. So I see the Book of Book of Mormon being written that we ALL by become one in Christ Jesus Gal. 3:28

[The Nehor]

Answer: Native American tribe on both continents and mixtures of them (ie Hispanics). Problem solved.

[mfbukowski]

One problem that is little discussed regarding the BOM is at least one of the purposes of the Book and it's apparent lack of usefulness any longer.

 

Brent Metcalf (former member) stated recently in an interview what he sees as problems with the historicity. He speaks about a major issue being that the Book Of Mormon sets itself up as an attempt to bring the literal descendants of Lehi back to the gospel. And to bring the ten tribes to a knowledge of their redeemer. We have almost completely abandoned this idea and yet it is engrained in the purpose of the BOM and yet we have no ethnic group who can be determined to be these groups. They simply are dispersed and at best completely not a connected group of people. Hence the BOM seems to fail in one of its designed purposes. We simply can not take any person and say with certainity that "you are a lamanite, and the Book of Mormon is for you"

 

For Example

 

 

How can you show someone something if they can not possibly know if they are part of the group that the book is designed for?

 

or 

 

 

 

Nephi and others are always admonishing his descendants to give ear to the book, but now we acknowledge a lack of certainity of who is lamanite and who is not (we claimed we knew in the past but it was a false assumption)

 

 

 

This is an issue that will lose people quickly as it is a hard one to dissect but it seems deeply problematic to BOM historicity or at least a major snafoo in how it lays out it's purpose.

Historicity doesn't matter unless you think it does.

 

No one can prove historically that Jesus is your personal savior, yet THE BELIEF has changed the lives of billions.

 

Faith is based on beliefs, not facts.

 

Faith is based on beliefs, not facts.   That was intentionally repeated.

 

If you believe actual historicity is important that becomes the problem.

 

The problem is all in your head.

[DBMormon]

I'm really not seeing the problem or issue.

 

Since i was young I've always assumed that the purposes of the book (which you already quoted) would be fulfilled whether or not the person or people involved knew who exactly was a lamanite or one of the lost 10 tribes or not.

 

God knows and the Spirit knows who these people are, and since the BOM is beneficial for everyone (regardless of whether or not they specifically fulfill the stated purpose) it really doesn't matter in the least if such information is possible to discern for us humans.

The book speaks as if they will know they are a descendant of the Lamanites.  

 

Historicity doesn't matter unless you think it does.

 

No one can prove historically that Jesus is your personal savior, yet THE BELIEF has changed the lives of billions.

 

Faith is based on beliefs, not facts.

 

Faith is based on beliefs, not facts.   That was intentionally repeated.

 

If you believe actual historicity is important that becomes the problem.

 

The problem is all in your head.

I get that.  But your position essentially says neven if it's not true historically, that it still changes lives of those who believe therefore that is all that matters.  I get that and in practice am much closer to that view than you likely think.  That said, for some historicity does matter.  I am still in that camp somewhat as well.

[DBMormon]

Answer: Native American tribe on both continents and mixtures of them (ie Hispanics). Problem solved.

so everyone is a lamanite and no one is a lamanite?

[The Nehor]

so everyone is a lamanite and no one is a lamanite?

I am almost certainly not. All my genealogies go back to Europe so I am a Gentile through and through of the apostate branch of Ephraim from the self-exile of the Ten Tribes. If you have any line to pre-Columbian natives as ancestors you are at least partially a Lamanite and those scriptures can be applied to you.

[DBMormon]

I am almost certainly not. All my genealogies go back to Europe so I am a Gentile through and through of the apostate branch of Ephraim from the self-exile of the Ten Tribes. If you have any line to pre-Columbian natives as ancestors you are at least partially a Lamanite and those scriptures can be applied to you.

unless any lamanite or nephite groups left this contenent and landed in europe and other places.

[DBMormon]

I am almost certainly not. All my genealogies go back to Europe so I am a Gentile through and through of the apostate branch of Ephraim from the self-exile of the Ten Tribes. If you have any line to pre-Columbian natives as ancestors you are at least partially a Lamanite and those scriptures can be applied to you.

I disagree.  Simply because a small group were lamanites in a small geographic area does not mean every native american, islander, samoan, etc.... is guaranteed to have lamiate blood.  Again there is no way for any person to be certain of their lamanite lineage unless an angel appears or some other spiritual directive.

[CA Steve]

So the reason given Nephi to kill Laban is not valid?

 

"It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief."

[The Nehor]

I disagree.  Simply because a small group were lamanites in a small geographic area does not mean every native american, islander, samoan, etc.... is guaranteed to have lamiate blood.  Again there is no way for any person to be certain of their lamanite lineage unless an angel appears or some other spiritual directive.

That is not important. In the Book of Mormon Lamanite is used as an indicator of political and cultural affiliation and not whether you were descended from Laman or Nephi or Mulekite stock or surviving Jaredites or other people not specifically mentioned. In addition over 2,500 years it is likely statistically that everyone in the Americas is descended from Lehi to some degree. The scriptures seem to imply such. So, my answer stands. Lots of Lamanites. All heirs to the promises. No need to worry.

[stemelbow]

One problem that is little discussed regarding the BOM is at least one of the purposes of the Book and it's apparent lack of usefulness any longer.

 

Brent Metcalf (former member) stated recently in an interview what he sees as problems with the historicity. He speaks about a major issue being that the Book Of Mormon sets itself up as an attempt to bring the literal descendants of Lehi back to the gospel. And to bring the ten tribes to a knowledge of their redeemer. We have almost completely abandoned this idea and yet it is engrained in the purpose of the BOM and yet we have no ethnic group who can be determined to be these groups. They simply are dispersed and at best completely not a connected group of people. Hence the BOM seems to fail in one of its designed purposes. We simply can not take any person and say with certainity that "you are a lamanite, and the Book of Mormon is for you"

 

For Example

 

 

How can you show someone something if they can not possibly know if they are part of the group that the book is designed for?

 

or 

 

 

 

Nephi and others are always admonishing his descendants to give ear to the book, but now we acknowledge a lack of certainity of who is lamanite and who is not (we claimed we knew in the past but it was a false assumption)

 

 

 

This is an issue that will lose people quickly as it is a hard one to dissect but it seems deeply problematic to BOM historicity or at least a major snafoo in how it lays out it's purpose.

I've heard Brent go on on this topic before and I too don't see a problem at all.

Why does it matter if the book is written to the Lamanites and perhaps a Lamanite never even reads it? Does that mean the book itself is useless or dare I say not scripture? It's already apparent there is more than one purpose for the book.

When I've heard Brent talk about this, and people's loving response, i'm like, "man, sometimes critics will die on any old hill out there. It doesn't seem like they care, but are happy if something sticks". Sorry Brent, this is a no win. Back to the drawing board.

Edited September 19, 2014 by stemelbow

[stemelbow]

That is not important. In the Book of Mormon Lamanite is used as an indicator of political and cultural affiliation and not whether you were descended from Laman or Nephi or Mulekite stock or surviving Jaredites or other people not specifically mentioned. In addition over 2,500 years it is likely statistically that everyone in the Americas is descended from Lehi to some degree. The scriptures seem to imply such. So, my answer stands. Lots of Lamanites. All heirs to the promises. No need to worry.

Yep. Brent thinks that we need to somehow prove and identify people as descended from Laman and Lemuel, which is silly.

[Kevin Christensen]

Who wrote the title page of the Book of Mormon? Which definition of "lamanite" would he be using at the time he wrote? For a hint, take a look at Jacob's first generation redefinition of the term from a lineage definition to a political definition. After Jacob, "lamanites" are those who are unfriendly to the Nephite government. After 4 Nephi, people chose factions and adopted names to suit their political choices. Mormon and Moroni, I notice, are writing about 900 years after the definition of Lamanite shifted towards a political one. And Jacob made the change, I would argue, because of the mixing he saw in his own life time.

Think about the term "House" was applied in ancient times. Was it a strict lineage definition? Or did it include all those of whatever lineage who lived within a household? Hint. Think about whether the servant, Eliazar, is of the house of Abraham. Think about whether Ruth is considered as of the House of Israel.

What happens when a person who has been outside of a covenant people makes the same covenants with the same being to whom the covenant people have covenants?

Why does Paul say that converts are "no more strangers and foreigners?"

What happens, as happens in so many places, if a word does not turn out to mean in a particular context what you thought it meant in every context? Does a transition to a different understanding make for an expansion of the mind and consequent growth of faith or the shattering of brittle wine bottle and subsequent loss?

How is it that I can be descended from English, Danish, and Icelandic people, and be called an American? Does every label have to be totally pure and genetically distinct through all time in order to be meaningful in a particular context?

Jesus seemed to think that the whole problem is accounted for by demonstration that "My sheep hear my voice." And Jacob himself provides an allegory about wide-ranging and complex, mixing and transplanting, moving, and regathering. Given the inherent complexity one side of the problem, doesn't the business about sheep knowing the shepherd seem helpful on the other side?

Jew and Gentile is a merism, an expression designed to be comprehensively inclusive of everyone. And of course, we could go into adoptionism.

Have you read Matt Roper's essay on Nephi's Neighbors? Essential enlightenment, I think.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[mfbukowski]

The book speaks as if they will know they are a descendant of the Lamanites.  

 

I get that.  But your position essentially says neven if it's not true historically, that it still changes lives of those who believe therefore that is all that matters.  I get that and in practice am much closer to that view than you likely think.  That said, for some historicity does matter.  I am still in that camp somewhat as well.

But what you are not seeing is this:

 

Historicity can NEVER BE PROVEN, therefore it is irrelevant and always has been

 

What matters in your life is your FAITH in the BELIEF that it all "really happened" even though it cannot be proven to have happened.

 

You are not saved by historicity, you are saved by faith after all that you can do

[bluebell]

The book speaks as if they will know they are a descendant of the Lamanites.  

 

 

 

Could you provide the reference for that so I know exactly what you mean?

[cinepro]

One problem that is little discussed regarding the BOM is at least one of the purposes of the Book and it's apparent lack of usefulness any longer.

I don't see this as a problem so much as a bit of trivia, or at the most an interesting way in which the Church has radically changed its interpretation of the Book of Mormon over the decades.

Obviously when it was first published, Joseph Smith and everyone else who believed it knew who the "Lamanites" were. They were the Native Americans they saw all around them. They had dark skin, lived in teepees, and no one knew how they had gotten there (and gotten their dark skin) until the Book of Mormon was published and told them. The Book of Mormon told them exactly who their ancestors were, what their religious heritage was, and what their future religious potential was (if not their literal future).

Now, thanks to genetics, practicality, and a good dose of common sense, that definition has expanded into a nebulous, undefinable demographic that means everything and nothing at the same time. "Dark skin" is a metaphor, "ancestor" ill-defined, and any sort of mixture of previous peoples is enough to make anyone anywhere anything they want to be. In their noble attempt to keep the Book of Mormon "true" defenders have sacrificed its message and relevance.

 

That's what Metcalfe is pointing out. It has gone from being a very specific, literal book directed at a very specific, literal people, to an almost ethereal, indistinct book directed at an ethereal, indistinct people.  I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but we should at least recognize what has happened.

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

..................................................   

 

................. your position essentially says even if it's not true historically,..................................

...........................

That's not how I read it.  Bukowski isn't addressing whether it is true historically, but rather that faith and belief do make the difference, and he is correct.

[Robert F. Smith]

......................................................................

Now, thanks to genetics, practicality, and a good dose of common sense, that definition has expanded into a nebulous, undefinable demographic that means everything and nothing at the same time. "Dark skin" is a metaphor, "ancestor" ill-defined, and any sort of mixture of previous peoples is enough to make anyone anywhere anything they want to be. In their noble attempt to keep the Book of Mormon "true" defenders have sacrificed its message and relevance.

 

That's what Metcalfe is pointing out. It has gone from being a very specific, literal book directed at a very specific, literal people, to an almost ethereal, indistinct book directed at an ethereal, indistinct people.  I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but we should at least recognize what has happened.

 

.................................................................................................

Confusion does reign supreme in some quarters, that is true, cinepro.

However, the Book of Mormon describes everyone on the planet, in addition to the so called "Lamanites," as being the target of the book.

And I don't recall Amerinds ever being described as "dark skins" -- "redskins," yeh, and Mongoloid in some circles, but such people (Asians) are just not described as dark skinned.  One can hark back to the distinction made by white southern racists in the Jim Crow era:  "If you're black, stand back.  If you're brown, you can stick around."  "Dark skin" is indeed a metaphor in the BofM, but a metaphor of what?  The biblical metaphor "dark skin" never relates to race or tribe.

 

As to genetics, we are not there yet.  We have yet to explore the full range of genetic testing on ancient skeletal remains from key areas of the Americas, and for the USA that is not possible owing to a law called NAGPRA for short.  Even the testing of a representative sample of specific modern peoples is difficult to complete, and the results are skewed by the bottleneck effect, and genetic drift.  As Ugo Perego points out, haplogroup Q in the Americas might have come from the Middle East:

Q1a3a1 (M3) Amerinds

Q1a3b (M323) Yemenite Jews

Italian Ugo Perego is hg C (Asian, possibly via the Huns who sacked Rome).  Yet his nuclear (autosomal) DNA is fully European, 100%.  How can that be?

Haplogroup C1 in Iceland (mtDNA)

C1a in Asia

C1b in Americas

How can this be?

Even though we know archeologically that the Vikings had settlements in America for nigh on 400 years, we have not yet found their DNA among Amerinds (except maybe C1).  No crossbreeding?

Hg X has a world distribution (America, Europe, and Middle East) including Iran, NE America, and Egyptian Bedouin

 

Perego, Ugo A., “Book of Mormon Genetics: A Reappraisal,” paper presented Aug 2, 2012, at annual FAIR Conference in Sandy, Utah (my personal notes).

Perego, Ugo A., "The Book of Mormon and the Origin of Native Americans from a Maternally Inherited DNA Standpoint" in R. Millet, ed., No Weapon Shall Prosper: New Light on Sensitive Issues (Deseret Book, 2011); available online at  http://www.fairlds.org/authors/perego-ugo/the-book-of-mormon-and-the-origin-of-native-americans-from-a-maternally-inherited-dna-standpoint , or  http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=22&num=1&id=796 .

Reich, David, et al., “Reconstructing Native American Population History,” Nature, (July 11, 2012), online at http://nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/nature11258.html .  Molecular clock.

Wade, Nicholas, “Earliest Americans Arrived in Waves, DNA Study Finds,” New York Times, July 7, 2012, online at  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/12/science/earliest-americans-arrived-in-3-waves-not-1-dna-study-finds.html .

Edited September 19, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[sethpayne]

 

 

Historicity can NEVER BE PROVEN, therefore it is irrelevant and always has been

 

 

 

I agree that ultimately historicity is unimportant and cannot be "proved."

 

However, it can be supported by strong evidence, no?  The inscription found in Israel with reference to a King David is very compelling evidence that David was, in fact, a historical person.  

[sethpayne]

Question for our resident BoM experts:

 

To me, the BoM reads like an epic.  Large nations with complex governments etc...  So on its face it is not at all clear that these emerging nations melded into an already existing culture.  

 

Do we have any examples of a small sub-group or culture writing something where they present themselves as being the dominant political/religious force when, in fact, they were actually a minority?

[bluebell]

The inscription found in Israel with reference to a King David is very compelling evidence that David was, in fact, a historical person.  

 

I could be, but we also have inscriptions in different ancient places with the names of Greek and Roman gods and other mythological people (who no one argues as being historical people), so the inscription alone might not hold much weight if there's not more to go with it.

Edited September 19, 2014 by bluebell

[sethpayne]

I could be, but we also have inscriptions in different ancient places with the names of Greek and Roman gods and other mythological people (who know one argues as being historical people), so the inscription alone might not hold much weight if there's not more to go with it.

 

Not alone, no.  But with Kings and Chronicles the inscription becomes compelling.

 

Of course, this says nothing about supernatural events in David's life.  But the inscription tends to support the Biblical assertion that such a person existed.