Ahab Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I assume you accept the Book of Mormon as true. If so, what basis would you have to doubt that Lehi has living descendants? Wrong question. I've told you before that I don't like assumptions as that term is generally understood. I believe he does but not because of any assumptions.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Senator said: Evidently not, which might be why the church felt it necessary to change the wording in the BofM. What does the change in the wording have to do with it? It was changed from "principal" to "among." Even if it had not been changed, the word "principal" presupposes that there were other ancestors in addition to the Nephites/Lamanites. Edited January 27, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 4 minutes ago, Ahab said: Wrong question. I've told you before that I don't like assumptions as that term is generally understood. I believe he does but not because of any assumptions. You lost me. But never mind. I'm not interested in pursuing this. 1
ksfisher Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 12 minutes ago, Ahab said: 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. You could pretty safely say that about anyone. I'm only one step removed from Kevin Bacon after all. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 5 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Deseret News article says ... Incidentally, when an article is published not just by the Deseret News but by the LDS Church News I appreciate when that more precise citation is made. It's a particular bias I have. 1
Senator Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: What does the change in the wording have to do with it? It was changed from "principal" to "among." Even it had not been changed, the word "principal" presupposes that there were other ancestors in addition to the Nephite/Lamanites. Exactly, so why make the change? What is communicated differently by changing the wording?
ksfisher Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 32 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%? Lehi either has living descendants or he doesn't. If he does the statistical probability of any one Native American being able to trace descent from Lehi is approaching 100%. I don't have enough math to work it out for myself, but fortunately there are very many clever people who do. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 18 minutes ago, Ahab said: 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. That pretty much says nothing and does not do justice to the virtual 100 percent likelihood that they themselves are descendants. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Senator said: Exactly, so why make the change? What is communicated differently by changing the wording? You really don't understand the difference between the words "principal" and "among"? The one conveys the idea of numerical dominance; the other does not. My principal ancestors (numerically speaking) are from Sweden. My progenitors from Wales (including those from whom I derived my Lloyd surname) are among my ancestors. To put it another way, those from Sweden, England, Wales and Scotland are all among my ancestors, but only those from Sweden are my principal ones. Edited January 27, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 1
Senator Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: You really don't understand the difference between the words "principal" and "among"? The one conveys the idea of numerical dominance; the other does not. My principal ancestors (numerically speaking) are from Sweden. My progenitors from Wales (including those from whom I derived my Lloyd surname) are among my ancestors. I actually do, which is why it surprises me that E. Andersen would use that wording. It's about impressions. Saying that one is a child of Lehi gives the impression that he is the principal ancestor or primary ancestor; which he is most likely not.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Senator said: I actually do, which is why it surprises me that E. Andersen would use that wording. It's about impressions. Saying that one is a child of Lehi gives the impression that he is the principal ancestor or primary ancestor; which he is most likely not. No, it certainly does not give that impression. I am very much a "child of" Wales (figuratively speaking) even bearing a Welsh surname. I honor my Welsh ancestors every bit as much as I do my Swedish ones. Furthermore, if I were to find through genealogical research that I had Native American ancestry, I would feel a kinship with Lehi and his descendants as well, regardless of how minimal the percentage was in my total ancestry. Edited January 27, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 1
Senator Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: No, it certainly does not give that impression. I am very much a "child of" Wales (figuratively speaking) even bearing a Welsh surname. I honor my Welsh ancestors every bit as much as I do my Swedish ones. I disagree. I feel it does.
Ahab Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 25 minutes ago, ksfisher said: Lehi either has living descendants or he doesn't. If he does the statistical probability of any one Native American being able to trace descent from Lehi is approaching 100%. I don't have enough math to work it out for myself, but fortunately there are very many clever people who do. You said "any one" but would you also say everyone with Native American heritage? I can grasp the concept but I don't have a testimony of that at this point so this may be one of your very few opportunities to try to convey the power of the Holy Ghost in your witness to me. May the Force be with you. Sincerely.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 6 minutes ago, Senator said: I disagree. I feel it does. You're entitled to your own opinion, but you must understand it is not binding on the Church or on any of its members, including me. 1
rockpond Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 Elder Anderson's statement that these Native Americans are children of Lehi presumes that all Native Americans (or all members of that tribe, if he was speaking only of them) were descended from Lehi or had ancestors that married members of Lehi's posterity. That's a big leap. And it seems unjustified in light of current DNA studies. 1
ksfisher Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 1 minute ago, Ahab said: You said "any one" but would you also say everyone with Native American heritage? I can grasp the concept but I don't have a testimony of that at this point so this may be one of your very few opportunities to try to convey the power of the Holy Ghost in your witness to me. May the Force be with you. Sincerely. "Any one" is just another way of saying "pick one person at random and use them as an example." So in this case "any one" and "everyone" conveys the same meaning. As far as having a testimony of it goes, as far as I'm concerned it's just math. I don't know if it's something to have a testimony of or not. 2
Ahab Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: You really don't understand the difference between the words "principal" and "among"? The one conveys the idea of numerical dominance; the other does not. My principal ancestors (numerically speaking) are from Sweden. My progenitors from Wales (including those from whom I derived my Lloyd surname) are among my ancestors. To put it another way, those from Sweden, England, Wales and Scotland are all among my ancestors, but only those from Sweden are my principal ones. So why do YOU believe the preface to the Book of Mormon was edited from principal ancestors to among? Your comments here gave me what I think is a good idea about that. I believe the principal ancestors of many of the Native Americans are the ancestors of Lehi, with Lehi being one of their many descendants.
Senator Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: You're entitled to your own opinion, but you must understand it is not binding on the Church or on any of its members, including me. Doesn't that go without saying?
stemelbow Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: No, it certainly does not give that impression. I am very much a "child of" Wales (figuratively speaking) even bearing a Welsh surname. I honor my Welsh ancestors every bit as much as I do my Swedish ones. Furthermore, if I were to find through genealogical research that I had Native American ancestry, I would feel a kinship with Lehi and his descendants as well, regardless of how minimal the percentage was in my total ancestry. To be fair, I'm not sure Elder Anderson has any idea if any Navajo is a descendant of Lehi at all. It is, after all, largely assumed and argued that there were many people in the Americas when Lehi arrived. Some, or most, of those weren't even Jaredites. That makes his claim of them being the children of Lehi kinda unknowable.
stemelbow Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 12 minutes ago, rockpond said: Elder Anderson's statement that these Native Americans are children of Lehi presumes that all Native Americans (or all members of that tribe, if he was speaking only of them) were descended from Lehi or had ancestors that married members of Lehi's posterity. That's a big leap. And it seems unjustified in light of current DNA studies. Oops. I'm slow. I just repeated this point below. Should have kept reading before I instinctively responded.
Calm Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 38 minutes ago, Senator said: I actually do, which is why it surprises me that E. Andersen would use that wording. It's about impressions. Saying that one is a child of Lehi gives the impression that he is the principal ancestor or primary ancestor; which he is most likely not. I am a "child" of all of my ancestors. "Principal" is "most important" and which ancestor that is will vary depending on the context. As far as gospel lineage, Lehi is a very important ancestor, possibly the principal one in their family's spiritual heritage. 2
Calm Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 (edited) 9 minutes ago, stemelbow said: To be fair, I'm not sure Elder Anderson has any idea if any Navajo is a descendant of Lehi at all. It is, after all, largely assumed and argued that there were many people in the Americas when Lehi arrived. Some, or most, of those weren't even Jaredites. That makes his claim of them being the children of Lehi kinda unknowable. But if we assume the BoM is true, than we know for sure Lehi had descendants and a lot of them. Given the time between then and now, as ksfisher says, we can be almost 100% sure any native American save those who were from isolated areas...which the Navajo are not...are descendants of Lehi just as we can say native Europeans are almost certainly descendants of Charlemange (and there was a lot less time for spreading out of descendants in that case). Edited January 27, 2016 by Calm 1
rockpond Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 I made this point in another thread but will repeat it here... Elder Anderson's "children of Lehi" comment raises questions about the Brethren's involvement with, review, and approval of the recent Gospel Topics essays. The essay on DNA and the Book of Mormon explains that there were many other people here at the time that Book of Mormon events took place. There were so many people that the essay concludes it is entirely possible that all traces of Lehite DNA have been eliminated. I find it hard to believe that someone familiar with this essay would have made the "children of Lehi" comment. 1
stemelbow Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 3 minutes ago, Calm said: But if we assume the BoM is true, than we know for sure Lehi had descendants and a lot of them. Given the time between then and now, as ksfisher says, we can be almost 100% sure any native American save those who were from isolated areas...which the Navajo are not...are descendants of Lehi just as we can say native Europeans are almost certainly descendants of Charlemange (and there was a lot less time for spreading out of descendants in that case). That seems to be saying a lot. I'm not sure we can conclude that many people called Lamanites or Nephites at around Moroni's time could be identified as children of Lehi, let alone any living Native Americans today. Fewf! that's a stretch and a half.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 21 minutes ago, Ahab said: So why do YOU believe the preface to the Book of Mormon was edited from principal ancestors to among? Your comments here gave me what I think is a good idea about that. I believe the principal ancestors of many of the Native Americans are the ancestors of Lehi, with Lehi being one of their many descendants. I've addressed this before. I believe the change was made because the former wording, intentionally or not, appeared to bind the Latter-day Saints to the belief that the Lehi's people were the princiipal ancestors, an assumption that is not borne out by the record and has been scrutinized in recent times and found wanting.
Recommended Posts