TheSkepticChristian Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 Deseret News article says , "It is also a place of rich Latter-day Saints history and activity. Two stakes (the Chinle Arizona Stake and the Tuba City Arizona Stake) and several other units from surrounding stakes operate within the Navajo Nation. Dozens of missionaries from the New Mexico Farmington Mission serve in its many wards and branches. Many of the members are renowned for their dedication and devotion, said Elder Neil L. Andersen of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. “They are the children of Lehi and they readily embrace the Savior and the teachings of the Book of Mormon"" http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865645895/Church-strengthens-ties-to-Navajo-Nation.html?pg=all I know it is not official doctrine, but that is going to make the meldrumites happy.
stemelbow Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 Well, I don't know much about it, but I was visiting a friend the other day in the Joseph Smith building in SLC and I saw a flyer on the wall advertising a lecture from Meldrum to be given in the coming weeks in the Joseph Smith building--it advertised his lecture on Book of Mormon evidences and referenced North American Native American tribes he'll talk about. It also had his website on the page. Sounds like quite a thing to host if no official endorsement is given. Is there not endorsement in hosting such an event.
Calm Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 29 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Deseret News article says , "It is also a place of rich Latter-day Saints history and activity. Two stakes (the Chinle Arizona Stake and the Tuba City Arizona Stake) and several other units from surrounding stakes operate within the Navajo Nation. Dozens of missionaries from the New Mexico Farmington Mission serve in its many wards and branches. Many of the members are renowned for their dedication and devotion, said Elder Neil L. Andersen of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. “They are the children of Lehi and they readily embrace the Savior and the teachings of the Book of Mormon"" http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865645895/Church-strengthens-ties-to-Navajo-Nation.html?pg=all I know it is not official doctrine, but that is going to make the meldrumites happy. Perhaps, but iirc he actually limits Lamanites to an area around the Great Lakes, the Heartland as they name it. So no, it wouldn't make them happy. Otoh, it causes no problem for those who favour a Mesoamerican location because they don't limit the extent that Lamanites could have traveled and intermarried overtime and would see almost all inhabitants of the Americas as descendants of Lehi after that many generations. Plus I know of no Mesoamerican who feels the need to limit the promises and prophecies to a small part of the Americas as the Heartlanders do if I understand them correctly. 3
Senator Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 Unless E. Andersen was speaking prophetically, isn't it really a supposition to say that native Americans are the children of Lehi? Yes, they could be; but we don't really know that, do we?
ksfisher Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Deseret News article says , "It is also a place of rich Latter-day Saints history and activity. Two stakes (the Chinle Arizona Stake and the Tuba City Arizona Stake) and several other units from surrounding stakes operate within the Navajo Nation. Dozens of missionaries from the New Mexico Farmington Mission serve in its many wards and branches. Many of the members are renowned for their dedication and devotion, said Elder Neil L. Andersen of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. “They are the children of Lehi and they readily embrace the Savior and the teachings of the Book of Mormon"" http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865645895/Church-strengthens-ties-to-Navajo-Nation.html?pg=all I know it is not official doctrine, but that is going to make the meldrumites happy. From a genealogical standpoint it is probable that anyone living on the western hemisphere could in some way trace their linage back to Lehi. While not addressing Lehi specificly, this article (and many more like them on the web) makes a good starting point for understanding. https://www.theguardian.com/science/commentisfree/2015/may/24/business-genetic-ancestry-charlemagne-adam-rutherford or this http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/05/the-royal-we/302497/ 3
Scott Lloyd Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 1 hour ago, Calm said: Perhaps, but iirc he actually limits Lamanites to an area around the Great Lakes, the Heartland as they name it. So no, it wouldn't make them happy. Otoh, it causes no problem for those who favour a Mesoamerican location because they don't limit the extent that Lamanites could have traveled and intermarried overtime and would see almost all inhabitants of the Americas as descendants of Lehi after that many generations. Plus I know of no Mesoamerican who feels the need to limit the promises and prophecies to a small part of the Americas as the Heartlanders do if I understand them correctly. Indeed. And if one considers Mark Wright's intriguing "Heartland as Hinterland" theory, there's no reason why this statement by Elder Andersen should give Heartlanders any particular reason to crow. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 (edited) 45 minutes ago, Senator said: Unless E. Andersen was speaking prophetically, isn't it really a supposition to say that native Americans are the children of Lehi? Yes, they could be; but we don't really know that, do we? Did you see ksfisher's post? It's a pretty obvious assumption, isn't it? Edited January 27, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 1
Senator Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Did you see ksfisher's post? It's a pretty obvious assumption, isn't it? An "obvious" assumption is still an assumption. I think it would be more accurate to have made the statement as, "you (Native Americans) could very well be the children of Lehi". But that's just me.
ksfisher Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 (edited) 35 minutes ago, Senator said: An "obvious" assumption is still an assumption. I think it would be more accurate to have made the statement as, "you (Native Americans) could very well be the children of Lehi". But that's just me. I believe that statistically the probability of anyone in that audience of Native American decent also being a descendant of Lehi (that is assuming that Lehi has living descendants and the line hasn't died out) is so close to 100% that there is no need to quibble over Elder Anderson's words. Edited January 27, 2016 by ksfisher Fixed spelling errors!!! 1
Senator Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 6 minutes ago, ksfisher said: I believe that statistically the probability of anyone in that audience of Native American decent also being a descendant of Lehi (that is assuming that Lehi has living descendants and the line hasn't died out) is so close to 100% that their is no need to quibble over Elder Anderson's words. Ok I would still prefer the wordage, Lehi being among your ancestors......at some point.
Avatar4321 Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 They could be lehi's children muc as those who hold the priesthood are Moses and aaron's 1
Ahab Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 56 minutes ago, ksfisher said: I believe that statistically the probability of anyone in that audience of Native American decent also being a descendant of Lehi (that is assuming that Lehi has living descendants and the line hasn't died out) is so close to 100% that there is no need to quibble over Elder Anderson's words. So based on that assumption you think the odds are at 100%, but what if you didn't assume that? Would you still be just as sure?
ksfisher Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 56 minutes ago, Ahab said: So based on that assumption you think the odds are at 100%, but what if you didn't assume that? Would you still be just as sure? I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you asking if I didn't assume what I was assuming would I still make that assumption?
Ahab Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 19 minutes ago, ksfisher said: I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you asking if I didn't assume what I was assuming would I still make that assumption? No. I meant that if you did not just assume that Lehi still has living descendants, would you still believe that statistically the probability of anyone in that audience of Native American descent was a descendant of Lehi is close to 100%?
Scott Lloyd Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 2 hours ago, Senator said: An "obvious" assumption is still an assumption. I think it would be more accurate to have made the statement as, "you (Native Americans) could very well be the children of Lehi". But that's just me. It could very well be the case that the sun will rise tomorrow just as it has done every morning since the earth came into being. But I'd better qualify that as being just my "assumption." 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, Senator said: Ok I would still prefer the wordage, Lehi being among your ancestors......at some point. Doesn't that go without saying? When I say that my ancestors came from Sweden, am I obliged to add in each and every instance that I also have some from England, Wales and Scotland? Or if I say my Israelite lineage (as declared in my patriarchal blessing) comes through Ephraim, do I have to add all the makeup that I know about of my other ancestral lines? Edited January 27, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 2
Matthew J. Tandy Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 I'm doing a word study on the concept of seed as Nephi understood it. In the vision, it appears he and the angel at times, and without any explanatory notice, use seed to refer to direct genetic lineage in one moment, and metaphorical lineage in another (ie, those who follow the truth of the gospel versus those who deny it). As Latter-day Saints, we regularly do the same. The principle of adoption augments and blurs the line of descent concepts. Elder Anderson may have meant genetic descendants. Statistically that is possible. However, nothing in his address that I noticed indicates he could not have also or only referred to spiritual/tradition seed. 1
Ahab Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 Obliged? Have to? I'll just say you'd be leaving something out if you didn't, and the more details the better when trying to share what you know with others.
Senator Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: It could very well be the case that the sun will rise tomorrow just as it has done every morning since the earth came into being. But I'd better qualify that as being just my "assumption." Well, I don't know about you, but I have a bit more confidence in telling someone the sun will come up tomorrow, than I would looking in the face of a Native American and telling them they are a child of Lehi.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 1 minute ago, Senator said: Well, I don't know about you, but I have a bit more confidence in telling someone the sun will come up tomorrow, than I would looking in the face of a Native American and telling them they are a child of Lehi. Under the circumstances I'm pretty much as certain of the one as I am of the other. I guess it takes all kinds to make a world. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Matthew J. Tandy said: I'm doing a word study on the concept of seed as Nephi understood it. In the vision, it appears he and the angel at times, and without any explanatory notice, use seed to refer to direct genetic lineage in one moment, and metaphorical lineage in another (ie, those who follow the truth of the gospel versus those who deny it). As Latter-day Saints, we regularly do the same. The principle of adoption augments and blurs the line of descent concepts. Elder Anderson may have meant genetic descendants. Statistically that is possible. However, nothing in his address that I noticed indicates he could not have also or only referred to spiritual/tradition seed. I have long known about and accepted the principle of adoption as it pertains to the covenant people of God. These days, however, I believe it is rarely if ever necessary. With the mathematical certainty that everyone has a common ancestor at least as recently as Charlamagne (see ksfisher's post above) it's a safe bet there is no one now living who does not have direct-line Israelite ancestry. Edited January 27, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 16 minutes ago, Ahab said: No. I meant that if you did not just assume that Lehi still has living descendants, would you still believe that statistically the probability of anyone in that audience of Native American descent was a descendant of Lehi is close to 100%? I assume you accept the Book of Mormon as true. If so, what basis would you have to doubt that Lehi has living descendants?
Senator Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Doesn't that go without saying? Evidently not, which might be why the church felt it necessary to change the wording in the BofM.
Ahab Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 2 minutes ago, Senator said: Well, I don't know about you, but I have a bit more confidence in telling someone the sun will come up tomorrow, than I would looking in the face of a Native American and telling them they are a child of Lehi. How would you feel about telling them their ancestors probably at least knew about some descendants of Lehi, though? I could confidently say that to anyone with any type of Native American heritage.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, Senator said: Ok I would still prefer the wordage, Lehi being among your ancestors......at some point. Why would you add "at some point"? Everyone who has Lehi as an ancestor has that ancestry going all the way back. There is no "some point" about it. Either he is an ancestor or he isn't. To draw a comparison, I have no ancestors who were members of the Church in Nauvoo. But my wife does. Therefore, each and every one of our children has Nauvoo ancestry, even though I personally don't. That will also be true of their children, their children's children, and all of our posterity going on to infinity. Edited January 27, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
Recommended Posts