2 Interesting "Mormon News" items

[theplains]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The change in the introduction does not negate the understanding that today's American Indians are descended from Lehi and hence is not inconsistent with the scriptures you cite here.

Do you think it does? I'm puzzled why you would think so

I was wondering if the term 'principal ancestors' was an error.

Thanks, Jim

[Calm]

Given the scriptural context and the meaning of "principal" as "most important", I don't see it as an error.  At this time, it appears that the most influential/important spiritual heritage for those who have descended from Native Americans is the Lehite connection with its attendant promised blessings.

For those who saw it as more important biological ancestor, that would likely be an error...depending on how they understood it, of course.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Given the scriptural context and the meaning of "principal" as "most important", I don't see it as an error.  At this time, it appears that the most influential/important spiritual heritage for those who have descended from Native Americans is the Lehite connection with its attendant promised blessings.

For those who saw it as more important biological ancestor, that would likely be an error...depending on how they understood it, of course.

I was making the same argument as you do here back when the introduction still read "principal ancestors." In terms of the Abrahamic covenant and promises, the Nephites and Lamanites still are the principal ancestors.

I was on board with the wording change, however, because the number people who seemed to be getting confused by it was high enough to warrant the change.

 

[RevTestament]

On 1/23/2016 at 1:12 PM, 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.

In a literal sense I believe there are some limits to this statment. The children of Lehi only had 2 mtDNA lines, and there are at least 5 major mtDNA lines present in pre-Columbus Native Americans. Of course the Mulekites added to the number in all probability, but is it proper to call them the "children of Lehi?" Obviously the Lamanites mixed with other lines. I believe they mixed with lines already present in the Americas.

Edited January 28, 2016 by RevTestament