JLHPROF Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 http://signaturebooks.com/mormon-news-january-18-22/ A couple of interesting items on this week's Mormon News blog post by Signature. NATIVES ARE “CHILDREN OF LEHI” In a meeting with members of the Navajo Nation, apostle Neil Anderson called the American Indians the “children of Lehi,” a reference to Mormon beliefs that Natives are Lamanites, the remnants of the Book of Mormon. While Anderson’s statement is perhaps not surprising, it comes at a time of an identity crisis for some Latter-day Saints who grew up being told they were Lamanites and descendants of Lehi. In recent years, the church has downplayed past beliefs that Native and Latin Americans are Lamanites, even changing the introduction to the Book of Mormon. Archaeology and DNA studies have prompted a rethinking among church members that has shifted Book of Mormon events from a hemispheric stage to a small, unidentified locale in Mesoamerica. PATRIARCHAL BLESSINGS ONLINE LDS members can now go online to see their own patriarchal blessings or to request a copy of their ancestors’ blessings. The development is part of a shift towards online and digital access for church members to see records. The church continues to embrace online tools even as the Internet has significantly impacted how Mormons understand their faith and its history. I think Patriarchal Blessings online is very interesting, considering how private and personal they are considered. Obviously they aren't available to the general public, but I still find the ease of access an interesting development in the way we view such things. As to the first item, I have no personal interest in the DNA question, but I know many here would find this reaffirmation interesting. 2
Jeanne Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 I love the idea of having PB online..but I wonder about what I was told about the blessings being very personal and to kind of keep them close to the vest.
volgadon Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 8 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said: How do we access our PBs online? I just requested mine a couple of days ago. Sign in at lds.org, the option will be there. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 32 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: http://signaturebooks.com/mormon-news-january-18-22/ A couple of interesting items on this week's Mormon News blog post by Signature. NATIVES ARE “CHILDREN OF LEHI” In a meeting with members of the Navajo Nation, apostle Neil Anderson called the American Indians the “children of Lehi,” a reference to Mormon beliefs that Natives are Lamanites, the remnants of the Book of Mormon. While Anderson’s statement is perhaps not surprising, it comes at a time of an identity crisis for some Latter-day Saints who grew up being told they were Lamanites and descendants of Lehi. In recent years, the church has downplayed past beliefs that Native and Latin Americans are Lamanites, even changing the introduction to the Book of Mormon. Archaeology and DNA studies have prompted a rethinking among church members that has shifted Book of Mormon events from a hemispheric stage to a small, unidentified locale in Mesoamerica. PATRIARCHAL BLESSINGS ONLINE LDS members can now go online to see their own patriarchal blessings or to request a copy of their ancestors’ blessings. The development is part of a shift towards online and digital access for church members to see records. The church continues to embrace online tools even as the Internet has significantly impacted how Mormons understand their faith and its history. I think Patriarchal Blessings online is very interesting, considering how private and personal they are considered. Obviously they aren't available to the general public, but I still find the ease of access an interesting development in the way we view such things. As to the first item, I have no personal interest in the DNA question, but I know many here would find this reaffirmation interesting. That today's American Indians are children of Lehi has never been in doubt as far as the Church is concerned. Even if we accept the probability that there were others in the Americas including the Nephites/Lamanites, the populations would have intermarried by now to the point that Native Americans can confidently surmise that they stem from Lehi. 1
juliann Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 23 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: http://signaturebooks.com/mormon-news-january-18-22/ A couple of interesting items on this week's Mormon News blog post by Signature. Archaeology and DNA studies have prompted a rethinking among church members that has shifted Book of Mormon events from a hemispheric stage to a small, unidentified locale in Mesoamerica. "A small unidentified locale?" Yup, they came and huddled in one small piece of dirt. No trading, moving, or contact with big identified locales for these folk. I hope it gets better than that. 4
rockpond Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 38 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: http://signaturebooks.com/mormon-news-january-18-22/ A couple of interesting items on this week's Mormon News blog post by Signature. NATIVES ARE “CHILDREN OF LEHI” I guess the gospel topics essays aren't reviewed and approved by ALL of the apostles. 3
JLHPROF Posted January 23, 2016 Author Posted January 23, 2016 1 minute ago, juliann said: "A small unidentified locale?" Yup, they came and huddled in one small piece of dirt. No trading, moving, or contact with big identified locales for these folk. I hope it gets better than that. I've never studied the archaeological claims for or against the Book of Mormon. I find them unimportant. But I know many board members here love the subject and get quite passionate about the different theories and would find the news article interesting. 1
Stroopwafel Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 53 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: NATIVES ARE “CHILDREN OF LEHI” In a meeting with members of the Navajo Nation, apostle Neil Anderson called the American Indians the “children of Lehi,” a reference to Mormon beliefs that Natives are Lamanites, the remnants of the Book of Mormon. While Anderson’s statement is perhaps not surprising, it comes at a time of an identity crisis for some Latter-day Saints who grew up being told they were Lamanites and descendants of Lehi. In recent years, the church has downplayed past beliefs that Native and Latin Americans are Lamanites, even changing the introduction to the Book of Mormon. Archaeology and DNA studies have prompted a rethinking among church members that has shifted Book of Mormon events from a hemispheric stage to a small, unidentified locale in Mesoamerica. Well, saying so doesn't make it so. Especially in this case.
VideoGameJunkie Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 30 minutes ago, volgadon said: I just requested mine a couple of days ago. Sign in at lds.org, the option will be there. Thanks!
Jeanne Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 Not being snarky here okay? But are there some statistics (they have been mentioned somewhere)..that since the earlier age, there are more coming home early?
cinepro Posted January 24, 2016 Posted January 24, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: That today's American Indians are children of Lehi has never been in doubt as far as the Church is concerned. Even if we accept the probability that there were others in the Americas including the Nephites/Lamanites, the populations would have intermarried by now to the point that Native Americans can confidently surmise that they stem from Lehi. Indeed... Edited January 24, 2016 by cinepro
Scott Lloyd Posted January 24, 2016 Posted January 24, 2016 4 hours ago, rockpond said: I guess the gospel topics essays aren't reviewed and approved by ALL of the apostles. I just read through a Gospel Topics essay titled "Book of Mormon and DNA Studies." I saw nothing there that denies AmerInds are descendants of Lehi. Am I missing something? Or were you alluding to a different essay?
Scott Lloyd Posted January 24, 2016 Posted January 24, 2016 4 hours ago, Jeanne said: Not being snarky here okay? But are there some statistics (they have been mentioned somewhere)..that since the earlier age, there are more coming home early? Did you mean to post this in a different thread? One of those about increases/decreases in missionaries, perhaps? If so, I will respond that I know of no such statistics. If you can find something solid (not just wishful thinking by naysayers and antagonists) please show us. Meanwhile, you might want to move this post to the thread where you intended to put it.
rodheadlee Posted January 24, 2016 Posted January 24, 2016 5 hours ago, Stroopwafel said: Well, saying so doesn't make it so. Especially in this case. Why especially in this case?
Stroopwafel Posted January 24, 2016 Posted January 24, 2016 10 hours ago, rodheadlee said: Why especially in this case? That is because in this particular case, there would be an actual way to substantiate the claim that the Navajo people (or insert your american indian nation of predilection) are descendants of Lehi, but it simply doesn't lead to this conclusion. Put another way, the only reason some are trying to find a semitic origin to the natives is ideological. If people weren't motivated by a theological doctrine, no one would ever reach such a conclusion from looking at the data.
rodheadlee Posted January 24, 2016 Posted January 24, 2016 1 hour ago, Stroopwafel said: That is because in this particular case, there would be an actual way to substantiate the claim that the Navajo people (or insert your american indian nation of predilection) are descendants of Lehi, but it simply doesn't lead to this conclusion. Put another way, the only reason some are trying to find a semitic origin to the natives is ideological. If people weren't motivated by a theological doctrine, no one would ever reach such a conclusion from looking at the data. I guess it all depends on what data you are looking at.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 24, 2016 Posted January 24, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, Stroopwafel said: That is because in this particular case, there would be an actual way to substantiate the claim that the Navajo people (or insert your american indian nation of predilection) are descendants of Lehi, but it simply doesn't lead to this conclusion. Put another way, the only reason some are trying to find a semitic origin to the natives is ideological. If people weren't motivated by a theological doctrine, no one would ever reach such a conclusion from looking at the data. The question is not whether one would reach such a conclusion. It's whether one can falsify such a conclusion. Since we profess that the truth of our faith can only be ascertained through divine revelation anyway, we are content to keep the question open as pertains to "looking at the data." Edited January 24, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
rodheadlee Posted January 24, 2016 Posted January 24, 2016 1 hour ago, Stroopwafel said: That is because in this particular case, there would be an actual way to substantiate the claim that the Navajo people (or insert your american indian nation of predilection) are descendants of Lehi, but it simply doesn't lead to this conclusion. Put another way, the only reason some are trying to find a semitic origin to the natives is ideological. If people weren't motivated by a theological doctrine, no one would ever reach such a conclusion from looking at the data. Have you seen this data? http://www.bmaf.org/sites/bmaf.org/files/image/Egyptian-Semitic-in-Uto-Aztecan-by-Brian-Stubbs-Jerry-Grover.pdf All data searches are ideological. 1
Stroopwafel Posted January 24, 2016 Posted January 24, 2016 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: The question is not whether one would reach such a conclusion. It's whether one can falsify such a conclusion. Not sure about what you intend to mean here.
Stroopwafel Posted January 24, 2016 Posted January 24, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, rodheadlee said: Have you seen this data? http://www.bmaf.org/sites/bmaf.org/files/image/Egyptian-Semitic-in-Uto-Aztecan-by-Brian-Stubbs-Jerry-Grover.pdf All data searches are ideological. In my very non-professional eyes, this seems quite compelling. I'll share his enthusiasm that "if it be truth, then this is only the beginning of findings," and wish him the best with his work. However, I'd say you may have unintendedly pulled a red herring here, since nothing in this research seems to talk about the Navajo. I know, I know, I've said you may use "your american indian nation of predilection," but wouldn't it be a plus if these kind of connections could also be found in their language since Elder Anderson's claim was made about the Navajo? You probably have a more encompassing definition of "ideological" than I do to claim that all data searches are such. Data are data. Of course, searching or running queries imply one has an idea of what he/she is looking for. However, that is in how one will frame (bend?) the results that issues may arise. The best data speak for themselves. I do not share this pessimism I often noticed in LDS researchers that their findings wouldn't be accepted because they supposedly go against the orthodoxy of their respective fields. I'll concede scientific communities, being made of humans, have their lot of people with high ambitions and inflated-egos protecting their not-so-impartial interests and what not. But there are people out there genuinely looking for truth, who will readily consider substantiated claims, and if eventually found accurate, will have no reason not to adopt them. Editing to add that even though a linguistic resemblance could be shown, it would still need to be shown how this was transmitted. Also, I went along with this, but although I wasn't specific, what I had in mind really was DNA. I guess I assumed this was obviously the only way of substantiating claims of descent. Edited January 24, 2016 by Stroopwafel additional thought
mapman Posted January 24, 2016 Posted January 24, 2016 As for the thing about Indians being Lamanites, my understanding is that the church currently teaches that all Indians were descended from Lehi, but that most of their ancestors weren't the Lehites described in the Book of Mormon, but probably people that had come here before. This seems pretty reasonable to me. I think being a "child of Lehi" has more to do with spiritual lineage than literal lineage anyways. The Book of Mormon divides the world into four groups: Jew, Gentile, Nephite, and Lamanite (see the Title Page: "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"), and the Book of Mormon describes prophecies for each group, but especially for the Lamanites. As far as the Book of Mormon is concerned Nephites are the people who wrote the Book of Mormon and the Jews wrote the Bible, everyone else is either a Gentile or a Lamanite.
bcuzbcuz Posted January 24, 2016 Posted January 24, 2016 22 hours ago, JLHPROF said: http://signaturebooks.com/mormon-news-january-18-22/ NATIVES ARE “CHILDREN OF LEHI” Archaeology and DNA studies have prompted a rethinking among church members that has shifted Book of Mormon events from a hemispheric stage to a small, unidentified locale in Mesoamerica. How many millions were killed in the many wars during the times 600 BC to 400 AD? And they all fit in a small area in MesoAmerica?.......And that area is unidentified because, so far, no culturally identifiable objects of a Hebrew culture have been found? Yes? No?
Jeanne Posted January 24, 2016 Posted January 24, 2016 17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Did you mean to post this in a different thread? One of those about increases/decreases in missionaries, perhaps? If so, I will respond that I know of no such statistics. If you can find something solid (not just wishful thinking by naysayers and antagonists) please show us. Meanwhile, you might want to move this post to the thread where you intended to put it. Thanks..I probably meant the other one..I bounce around so much that I get myself all over the place! n I will see if I can find out where I saw it. It was just recently too.
rodheadlee Posted January 24, 2016 Posted January 24, 2016 2 hours ago, Stroopwafel said: In my very non-professional eyes, this seems quite compelling. I'll share his enthusiasm that "if it be truth, then this is only the beginning of findings," and wish him the best with his work. However, I'd say you may have unintendedly pulled a red herring here, since nothing in this research seems to talk about the Navajo. I know, I know, I've said you may use "your american indian nation of predilection," but wouldn't it be a plus if these kind of connections could also be found in their language since Elder Anderson's claim was made about the Navajo? Good catch, I noticed that too. I am not a scholar and I'm not sure where the Navajo language came from. It appears to have been brought down through the Bering Straits. The interesting thing to me, as a sailor, is I believe that Hagoth shipping ran up the west coast of Mexico from Chiapas to the area north of Banderas Bay and on into the Sea of Cortez. This follows the migration of the language group Uto-Aztecan. I had the opportunity to spend a few years in this area and to me, the Sea of Cortez is a sacred place. For me, the veil is very thin there and I have no TR, nor was I active in the Church at the time.
Recommended Posts