Origins: Native Americans as a Lost Tribe

[HappyJackWagon]

As a youngster I believed that one of the unique teachings of our church was the origin story for Native Americans. In fact, it seemed like Mormonism thrived, at least in part, during its early years because it answered a burning question that hovered in the early 19th century ether; where did the Indians come from and what was their nature? The Book of Mormon answered those questions, showing the indigenous Americans to be of ancient Hebrew origins.

Years later, and I was just reminded of this today, I learned that the idea of Native Americans being one of the lost tribes of Israel was not unique to Mormonism and had been an idea floating around for at least a couple of hundred years. If my understanding is correct, the early puritans believed the NA's were of Hebrew descent. They found evidences in the language and cultural practices like circumcision and a dislike of swine.

Aside from books like View of the Hebrews, are there any short reviews of how/when this origin story first developed? I'd love to find a podcast or essay as well as hearing your thoughts about the early development of this idea in early colonial America.

[Johnnie Cake]

This commonly held belief was born out of the bigotry and racism of that era.  Early Americans could not conceive that the Native (Dark and Loathsome)  American populations could be responsible for the vast network of interconnecting roads, villages , mounds and defensive structures the whites discovered spread across America...surely, in their minds, only a White and Delightsome people could have built something so great and vast.  It has to be the Lost Tribes of Israel .  Joseph coopted his widely held point of view, including the racism, into his Book of Mormon.

One of the greatest offensive ideas to come from the Book of Mormon is the notion that dark skinned Native Americans were not capable of building the great cities, temples, archeological discoveries in the Americas...that it had to somehow be attributed to the white and delightsome Nephites 

Edited July 28, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[hagoth7]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

As a youngster I believed that one of the unique teachings of our church was the origin story for Native Americans. In fact, it seemed like Mormonism thrived, at least in part, during its early years because it answered a burning question that hovered in the early 19th century ether; where did the Indians come from and what was their nature? The Book of Mormon answered those questions, showing the indigenous Americans to be of ancient Hebrew origins.

Years later, and I was just reminded of this today, I learned that the idea of Native Americans being one of the lost tribes of Israel was not unique to Mormonism and had been an idea floating around for at least a couple of hundred years. If my understanding is correct, the early puritans believed the NA's were of Hebrew descent. They found evidences in the language and cultural practices like circumcision and a dislike of swine.

Aside from books like View of the Hebrews, are there any short reviews of how/when this origin story first developed? I'd love to find a podcast or essay as well as hearing your thoughts about the early development of this idea in early colonial America.

That idea was planted in what is called the Old World the moment ancient pilgrims first set foot on the so-called Old World.   ...so by and among the ancient ancestors of those who later settled the Americas.

Might do a podcast on that relatively soon.

Several essays on that have been posted here in this forum over the last decade or so.

More can be found in and through the website in my profile.

Edited July 28, 2017 by hagoth7

[hagoth7]

4 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

This commonly held belief was born out of the bigotry and racism of that era.  Early Americans could not conceive that the Native (Dark and Loathsome)  American populations could be responsible for the vast network of interconnecting roads, villages , mounds and defensive structures the whites discovered spread across America...surely, in their minds, only a White and Delightsome people could have built something so great and vast.  It has to be the Lost Tribes of Israel .  Joseph coopted his widely held point of view, including the racism, into his Book of Mormon.

One of the greatest offensive ideas to come from the Book of Mormon is the notion that dark skinned Native Americans were not capable of building the great cities, temples, archeological discoveries in the Americas...that it had to somehow be attributed to the white and delightsome Nephites 

Myth. Of the false kind.

Many saw natives as noble and honorable, fx. The peaceful William Penn..

Review the writings of those who honored and respected natives...and you will find an epicenter of such later origin accounts.

 

[hagoth7]

10 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

This commonly held...

That said, I do appreciate your desire to defend what you deem to be native heritage.

Edited July 28, 2017 by hagoth7

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

As a youngster I believed that one of the unique teachings of our church was the origin story for Native Americans. In fact, it seemed like Mormonism thrived, at least in part, during its early years because it answered a burning question that hovered in the early 19th century ether; where did the Indians come from and what was their nature? The Book of Mormon answered those questions, showing the indigenous Americans to be of ancient Hebrew origins.

Years later, and I was just reminded of this today, I learned that the idea of Native Americans being one of the lost tribes of Israel was not unique to Mormonism and had been an idea floating around for at least a couple of hundred years. If my understanding is correct, the early puritans believed the NA's were of Hebrew descent. They found evidences in the language and cultural practices like circumcision and a dislike of swine.

Aside from books like View of the Hebrews, are there any short reviews of how/when this origin story first developed? I'd love to find a podcast or essay as well as hearing your thoughts about the early development of this idea in early colonial America.

I recall reading and article or watching a documentary that talked about this phenomenon.  White explorers during the 19th century were discovering lost tribes all over the globe and saying that they were one of the 10 tribes.  Stanley (of Stanley and Livingston fame) even found a tribe of white Africans living around Lake Victoria that he believed were remnants of one of the tribes. 

It's been several months since I read or watched this so I'm going to have to dig deeper in my memory to remember a title.

[thesometimesaint]

The "Indians" of the Book of Mormon were a highly advanced civilization far different than that of the world of Joseph Smith, and A View of the Hebrews he supposedly copied the Book of Mormon from.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

This commonly held belief was born out of the bigotry and racism of that era.  Early Americans could not conceive that the Native (Dark and Loathsome)  American populations could be responsible for the vast network of interconnecting roads, villages , mounds and defensive structures the whites discovered spread across America...surely, in their minds, only a White and Delightsome people could have built something so great and vast.  It has to be the Lost Tribes of Israel .  Joseph coopted his widely held point of view, including the racism, into his Book of Mormon.

One of the greatest offensive ideas to come from the Book of Mormon is the notion that dark skinned Native Americans were not capable of building the great cities, temples, archeological discoveries in the Americas...that it had to somehow be attributed to the white and delightsome Nephites 

Actually, the Book of Mormon does not equate skin pigmentation to wickedness:

2 Nephi 26:33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

So you are giving a common misconception of the Book of Mormon. It is speaking of spiritual darkness. I'm not saying the appearance of the Lamanites did not change - I believe it did - but their countenance did change to something dark until they return to God and the scales fall from their eyes(no, their skin is not going to change color either). I have more to say on this subject, but it will have to wait.

[Johnnie Cake]

58 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

Myth. Of the false kind.

Many saw natives as noble and honorable, fx. The peaceful William Penn..

Review the writings of those who honored and respected natives...and you will find an epicenter of such later origin accounts.

 

There are always exceptions to the rule...thanks for sharing one of them

[Johnnie Cake]

13 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Actually, the Book of Mormon does not equate skin pigmentation to wickedness:

2 Nephi 26:33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

So you are giving a common misconception of the Book of Mormon. It is speaking of spiritual darkness. I'm not saying the appearance of the Lamanites did not change - I believe it did - but their countenance did change to something dark until they return to God and the scales fall from their eyes(no, their skin is not going to change color either). I have more to say on this subject, but it will have to wait.

haha... yeah right...  21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

You've convinced me...

Edited July 28, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[USU78]

4 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

There are always exceptions to the rule...thanks for sharing one of them

Exceptions? Was Cooper's popularity a function of his exceptionality or his  reflexion of the notion's general acceptance?

Remember when he wrote.

[cacheman]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

This commonly held belief was born out of the bigotry and racism of that era.  Early Americans could not conceive that the Native (Dark and Loathsome)  American populations could be responsible for the vast network of interconnecting roads, villages , mounds and defensive structures the whites discovered spread across America...surely, in their minds, only a White and Delightsome people could have built something so great and vast.  It has to be the Lost Tribes of Israel .  Joseph coopted his widely held point of view, including the racism, into his Book of Mormon.

One of the greatest offensive ideas to come from the Book of Mormon is the notion that dark skinned Native Americans were not capable of building the great cities, temples, archeological discoveries in the Americas...that it had to somehow be attributed to the white and delightsome Nephites 

There were definitely a number of racist theories and legends in those days surrounding the Native Americans and their origins.  One of the legends described an intellectually superior group of white indians that despite being outnumbered, they knew the art of war and were able to build 'fortifications' to help defeat them.  The inferior 'black indians', after many defeats imitated the white indians' fortifications and breastworks in order to exterminate the white indians in a final battle.  Legends like this were used to explain the existence of the mounds in Ohio and surrounding areas.  Of course, later Zelph, the white lamanite was found in this general area.  It's not hard to imagine that Joseph Smith was aware of these legends.

Edited July 28, 2017 by cacheman
misspelling

[Johnnie Cake]

16 minutes ago, cacheman said:

There were definitely a number of racist theories and legends in those days surrounding the Native Americans and their origins.  One of the legends described an intellectually superior group of white indians that despite being outnumbered, they knew the art of war and were able to build 'fortifications' to help defeat them.  The inferior 'black indians', after many defeats imitated the white indians' fortifications and breastworks in order to exterminate the white indians in a final battle.  Legends like this were used to explain the existence of the mounds in Ohio and surrounding areas.  Of course, later Zelph, the white lamanite was found in this general area.  It's not hard to imagine that Joseph Smith was aware of these legends.

It's a joke that bones raided from a grave in Illinois in an Indian Mound...that Smith attributed to a white Indian named Zelph  would be anything but Native American...again the assertion is offensive to the real human and the life this Native American lived, whose bones were dug up from that grave    

Edited July 28, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

As a youngster I believed that one of the unique teachings of our church was the origin story for Native Americans. In fact, it seemed like Mormonism thrived, at least in part, during its early years because it answered a burning question that hovered in the early 19th century ether; where did the Indians come from and what was their nature? The Book of Mormon answered those questions, showing the indigenous Americans to be of ancient Hebrew origins.

Years later, and I was just reminded of this today, I learned that the idea of Native Americans being one of the lost tribes of Israel was not unique to Mormonism and had been an idea floating around for at least a couple of hundred years. If my understanding is correct, the early puritans believed the NA's were of Hebrew descent. They found evidences in the language and cultural practices like circumcision and a dislike of swine.

Aside from books like View of the Hebrews, are there any short reviews of how/when this origin story first developed? I'd love to find a podcast or essay as well as hearing your thoughts about the early development of this idea in early colonial America.

A View of the Hebrews is the best known example I can think of. There was a Scotsman who wrote extensively of Indian practices and posited a belief that the Indians he encountered were Hebrews, but he was not taken seriously. The reference is James Adair, and iirc it was The History of the American Indians or similar and was published a little earlier - around 1775. Many other colonists such as William Penn commented on the natives of the Northeast, and how their appearance was remarkably European - that they could pass off as Italians or similar, so my guess is the idea went back to the time of the founding of the colonies. Initially, the British were not near so brutal with the Natives they encountered as the Spanish - who sought to enslave them from the time of Christopher Columbus, but unfortunately the idea of manifest destiny took root, and presidents such as Andrew Jackson passed measures which essentially kicked the Natives to the curb. In fact it was only a few months after the Book of Mormon was published that its prophecy regarding the Natives being forced out began to be fulfilled with the passage of the Indian Removal Act signed by President Andrew Jackson two months later on May 28, 1830. For other examples of your specific question, I would look in magazines and such which published common ideas. It was a fairly common speculation in New England. However, I believe the Natives of the NE area are different. They are still different to this day - genetically, and otherwise. The surviving art of these Natives reflects that as well. Many portraits depict Natives that looked remarkably European.

Edited July 28, 2017 by RevTestament

[RevTestament]

21 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

haha... yeah right...  21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

You've convinced me...

It doesn't say black people will change to white people, but yet they are invited to God. The skin language is figurative like the scales over their eyes. Similar language is found in Job where he says his skin is made black. Daniel speaks of being tried to make them white - it's simply ancient Hebrew nomenclature. I'm sure you will continue to dismiss that though as it doesn't suit your preconceived notions.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, hagoth7 said:

Myth. Of the false kind.

Many saw natives as noble and honorable, fx. The peaceful William Penn..

Review the writings of those who honored and respected natives...and you will find an epicenter of such later origin accounts.

 

If I'm not mistaken, Harvard was originally intended to be a university to train both white and native peoples in an effort to integrate cultures. On a recent Radio West podcast, Judge Sewall and the Salem Witch Trials, Richard Francis makes the claim that some of the early Native American students at Harvard became accomplished poets in Greek and Latin (among other accomplishments). This leads me to believe that Harvard's original mission may have been centered around a view that the natives were noble, honorable, respectable, capable, etc, instead of their inclusion being some kind of condescension for the sake of the "savages".

It does seem clear that in addition to deeply believing principles such as God's election of the saved (perhaps similar to calling and election), early puritan colonists also had a view of Native American heritage that may have influenced Joseph Smith.

[RevTestament]

40 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

It's a joke that bones raided from a grave in Illinois in an Indian Mound...that Smith attributed to a white Indian named Zelph  would be anything but Native American...again the assertion is offensive to the real human and the life this Native American lived, whose bones were dug up from that grave    

Your pious over-sensitivity is noted. Actually, that mound was scattered with bones presumably because of erosion, so it was not like JS uncovered some sacred burial. The bones were already partially exposed. If you knew the history, Zelph's bones were taken to be properly buried by one of the apostles iirc, so it is not like any disrespect was intended as you imply. That mound has been heavily looted and actually been excavated, so historically, JS was doing Zelph a favor and showing respect by getting him a respectable burial. It has been confirmed that it was Hopewell in origin. In other words it was not a pre-existing culture. Nor was it Mississippian - a later culture which came into the area about  500 years later. So archaeology actually places Zelph at the correct time and in the correct culture of the Book of Mormon final battles. Again, here we see that whiteness was not really a skin pigmentation, but a matter of cleanness in Christ. All can be made white like Zelph. 

3 Nephi 19:25

25 And it came to pass that Jesus blessed them as they did pray unto him; and his ^acountenance did smile upon them, and the light of his ^bcountenancedid ^cshine upon them, and behold they were as ^dwhite as the countenance and also the garments of Jesus; and behold the whiteness thereof did exceed all the whiteness, yea, even there could be nothing upon earth so white as the whiteness thereof.

This just further proves my point about the use of this term in Hebrew nomenclature. The fact that you do not understand it is shown in your continued tirades about racism and your efforts to paint JS as a racist.

Edited July 28, 2017 by RevTestament

[RevTestament]

34 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If I'm not mistaken, Harvard was originally intended to be a university to train both white and native peoples in an effort to integrate cultures. On a recent Radio West podcast, Judge Sewall and the Salem Witch Trials, Richard Francis makes the claim that some of the early Native American students at Harvard became accomplished poets in Greek and Latin (among other accomplishments). This leads me to believe that Harvard's original mission may have been centered around a view that the natives were noble, honorable, respectable, capable, etc, instead of their inclusion being some kind of condescension for the sake of the "savages".

It does seem clear that in addition to deeply believing principles such as God's election of the saved (perhaps similar to calling and election), early puritan colonists also had a view of Native American heritage that may have influenced Joseph Smith.

You are correct. Actually, a Cherokee sought this path. He was schooled there and tried to negotiate with the colonists on behalf of his fellow natives. However, it seems a handful of gold found in Georgia undid his efforts, and Georgia passed a law which made it illegal for the Natives to mine any gold on their land, and the Georgians quickly moved to dispossess the Cherokee of their lands eventually culminating in the infamous trail of tears. The only Cherokee to survive this forced move were a few in the Bryson City area of North Carolina - many of whom had become citizens so they could not be forced off their land. So the efforts to meet the colonists on equal terms through education, etc were largely a failure - and the promise of gold did not last. There was very little in Georgia. So good old fashioned greed blocked the efforts of the Natives to meet the colonists on an equally educated footing or on their own terms.

[Brant Gardner]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Aside from books like View of the Hebrews, are there any short reviews of how/when this origin story first developed? I'd love to find a podcast or essay as well as hearing your thoughts about the early development of this idea in early colonial America.

The idea begins, as far as I can see, with the Spanish fathers in Mexico. Columbus identified the natives as "Indians" and Thomas Didymus was traditionally the apostle to India. The idea developed that he had come to the New World and proselyted and that these native Americans had once been Christian. In English literature, that morphed into the lost ten tribes. Here is a footnote in my chapter on that:

Justin Winsor, Narrative and Critical History of America, 115–16, provides an extensive overview of this literature:

The identification of the native Americans with the stock of the lost tribes of Israel very soon became a favorite theory with the early Spanish priests settled in America. Las Casas and Duran adopted it, while Torquemada and Acosta rejected it. André Thevet, of mendacious memory, did not help the theory by espousing it. It was approved in J. F. Lumnius’s De extreme Dei Judicio et Indorum vocatione, libri iii. (Venice and Antwerp, 1569), and a century later the belief attracted new attention in the Origen de los Americanos de Manasseh Ben Israel, published at Amsterdam in 1650. It was in the same year (1650) that the question received the first public discussion in English in Thomas Thorowgood’s Jewes in America, or, Probabilities That the Americans Are of That Race. With the Removal of Some Contrary Reasoning, and Earnest Desires for Effectual Endeavors to Make the Christian (London, 1650). Thornwood was answered by Sir Harmon L’Estrange in Americans Not Iewes, or Improbabilities That the Americans Are of That Race (London, 1652). The views of Thorowgood found sympathy with the Apostle Eliot of Massachusetts; and when Thorowgood replied to L’Estrange he joined with it an essay by Eliot, and the joint work was entitled Iewes in America, or Probabilities That Those Indians Are Judaical, Made More Probable by Some Additions to the Former Conjectures: An Accurate Discourse Is Premised of Mr. John Eliot (Who Preached the Gospel to the Natives in Their Own Language) Touching Their Origination, and His Vindication of the Planters (London, 1660). What seems to have been a sort of supplement, covering, however, in part the same ground, appeared as Vindicia Judacorum, or a True Account of the Jews, Being More Accurately Illustrated than Heretofore, which includes what is called “The learned conjectures of Rev. Mr. John Eliot.” Some of the leading New England divines, like Mayhew and Mather, espoused the cause with similar faith. Roger Williams also was of the same opinion. William Penn is said to have held like views. The belief may be said to have been general, and had not died out in New England when Samuel Sewall, in 1697, published his Phaenomena quaedam Apocalyptica ad Aspectum Novi Orbis Configurata.

[cinepro]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

Aside from books like View of the Hebrews, are there any short reviews of how/when this origin story first developed? I'd love to find a podcast or essay as well as hearing your thoughts about the early development of this idea in early colonial America.

Dan Vogel's book is available for free here:

Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon

Chapter 3 is probably what you want.

Quote

No less spirited than the controversy over whether the Indians were descended from pre-Adamites was the secondary debate among proponents of the Old World origin of the Indians about which group had fathered the American aborigines. Even legends and myths were mined for an answer to the question. Hanno of Carthage, according to Greek mythology, sailed through Gibraltar with a fleet of sixty ships and planted colonies along the west coast of Africa around 425 B.C. Some early writers suggested that these sailors might have gone on to settle in America.²⁴ Welsh legend tells of a prince Madoc ab Owain Gwynedd who tired of the constant warfare in his homeland and sailed off into the Atlantic around A.D. 1170. Reports of a group of Welsh-speaking Indians bolstered the theory that the Madoc colony had reached America.²⁵ Some early explorers tried to locate the Seven Enchanted Cities of Gold which were believed to have been established by the Seven Portuguese Bishops who had fled to America when the Arabs invaded the Iberian peninsula in medieval times.²⁶ And there were even those who developed a theory that the Indians originated from Atlantis, the mythical continent described by Plato.²⁷

However, many of those reared and educated on the Bible turned to that source as well as to the Apocrypha and Jewish legends to explain the origin of the Indians in America. The dispersion from the tower of Babel was one obvious possibility. The biblical account says the Lord confounded the language of the tower’s builders and “scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth” (Gen. 11:8). For example, English theologian Sir Hamon l’Estrange argued in 1652 that the first settlers of America were descendants of Noah’s son Shem who came from the tower.²⁸ To many apologists, however, the Babel theory seemed inadequate since it did not explain how traces of the Law of Moses and other Jewish practices could be found among the American Indians—a claim increasingly interposed into the debate.

 

Edited July 28, 2017 by cinepro

[Kevin Christensen]

From Andrew Hedges's review of the BYU Publication of View of the Hebrews:

Quote

The tradition in which Ethan Smith was writing was a long and venerable one—as Richard Bushman has reminded us, English scholars were identifying the American aborigines with Jews as early as the sixteenth century.¹ The idea reached American shores in the mid-1640s when John Eliot, the famous Puritan “Apostle to the Indians”; Daniel Gookin, the Massachusetts Bay Colony’s Indian Superintendent; and other Puritan divines found the similarities between the Algonquin culture and ancient Israelite practices so compelling that they modified the then popular view—which held that the Indians were gentile “Tartars” from Asia—to suggest that, at the very least, the Indians were descendants of Hebrews who had made their way to America via a land bridge from Asia and were quite likely descendants of the lost tribes who had come the same route.² Subsequent generations discussed and promoted the idea until 1775, when James Adair fully developed it in his History of the American Indians.³ Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews was just one of several books and pamphlets written on the topic in both England and America following the publication of Adair’s book, all of which echoed the earlier Puritan contention that the Indians were unchurched descendants of the lost tribes who had come to America from Asia via a land bridge or, at most, “by canoes, or other craft” (p. 84) across the Bering Straits.⁴

A close reading of View of the Hebrews suggests that, while some aspects of this reconstruction could be debated, it is generally so complex as to be quite inflexible, based as it is on a relatively conservative reading of the biblical text and a number of suppositions so interdependent that if one should prove false, the whole model would collapse. Any modifications would have to be relatively small and insignificant, which explains why the basic outlines of the model remained virtually unchanged over the course of two centuries’ worth of discussion. For example, churchmen over the centuries could (and did) debate how much of the Mosaic law the Indians as the lost tribes had retained after arriving in America. They could do this because such debates did not alter in the least the basic structure of the paradigm, which posited a pre-Christian migration of Israelites who had some knowledge of Old Testament practices. The churchmen did not, however, at any time debate the possibility that the Indians’ ancestors knew of Christ’s birth before the event, had engaged in such New Testament practices as baptism in Old Testament times, and had been visited by Christ after his resurrection. This was because the mere suggestion of these things would have done violence to their understanding of the Bible, contemporary evidence from Indian cultures themselves, and other parts of the model. For such a suggestion to be true in the context of early America’s understanding of the Bible, for example, the Indians’ ancestors would have to have been believing Christians who left the Old World after the time of Christ, since early American scholarship emphatically held that the ancient Israelites completely misunderstood their own messianic prophecies and that ordinances like baptism had not been practiced in Old Testament times.⁵ This reconstruction would have flown in the face of all existing anthropological evidence, however—none of the practices in the native cultures studied resembled New Testament practices—and, unlike the lost tribes thesis, had no basis in scripture. Given the parameters in which they had to work, the suggestion that the Indians’ ancestors engaged in New Testament practices would have created rather than solved problems and would have required an entirely new reconstruction of events—based on a new reading of the text and other evidence—to be taken seriously. In short, keeping with our example, either the suggestion that the Indians’ ancestors practiced baptism or the model proposed by Adair, Smith, and others would have to be false; they could not both be true, nor—and this is important—could the former be considered an unimportant, inconsequential, and perfectly logical modification of the latter.

The Book of Mormon, of course, makes precisely this claim about baptism, along with several others that likewise cannot be reconciled with the nineteenth-century model explaining Indian origins. Thus it was that the further I read in View of the Hebrews, the greater the distance between it and the Book of Mormon appeared. Superficially, of course, the two resemble each other, and it was easy to see how someone with an ax to grind against the LDS Church could, with a little creative negligence, make a case against the Book of Mormon. But as I came to understand the complexity and inflexibility of Smith’s model, it became increasingly clear to me that the Book of Mormon’s teachings concerning Indian origins and destinies were something entirely new on the American scene and represented far more than mere modifications of the existing explanation. They were, to borrow a phrase, a “strange thing in the land” in every respect.

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1441&index=12

Dan Vogel's Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon is useful for its survey of a range of publications on the topic.  Though, in my view, (and in my review of Vogel's book in the old Review) such writings contributed to the misreading of the text rather than to it's composition. 

And regarding the curse in the Book of Mormon, it looks like Johnnie Cake did not participate in this thread:

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

The idea begins, as far as I can see, with the Spanish fathers in Mexico. Columbus identified the natives as "Indians" and Thomas Didymus was traditionally the apostle to India. The idea developed that he had come to the New World and proselyted and that these native Americans had once been Christian. In English literature, that morphed into the lost ten tribes.

I find this interesting. St. Thomas was said to have been buried in India. But then as European explorers ventured deeper into the Indian and Pacific Oceans, they took the legends of Thomas with them and shifted the location of the Garden of Eden and Paradise farther to the extremities. The maps Columbus used placed Paradise and Thomas somewhere in Southeast Asia near Champa (Cambodia or Vietnam). After the shape and form of America took shape and it became clear that America was not a part of Asia, the legends of Thomas, the lost tribes, and the location of the Garden of Eden were shifted. 

These were not new ideas, they were simply transplanted from India to Southeast Asia to the Americas as new territory was revealed. 

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Daniel Gookin, the Massachusetts Bay Colony’s Indian Superintendent; and other Puritan divines found the similarities between the Algonquin culture and ancient Israelite practices so compelling that they modified the then popular view—which held that the Indians were gentile “Tartars” from Asia—to suggest that, at the very least, the Indians were descendants of Hebrews who had made their way to America via a land bridge from Asia and were quite likely descendants of the lost tribes who had come the same route.

One of the most popular theories just previous to the publication of the Book of Mormon was that Native Americans were descended from the fair-skinned Tartars who crossed from Asia across the land bridge and the darker-skinned Malays who crossed the Pacific. Samuel Mitchill (one of the three scholars to assess the Book of Mormon caractors document) claimed that the Tartars and the Malays fought a large battle in upstate New York. 

I recommend this paper by Richard Bennett:

"This paper probes the theories of the origin of the American Indian up to the time of the translation and publication of the Book of Mormon. It covers some three hundred years of development, looking at many different theories, including the predominant theory of the lost tribes of Israel, which was in decline among most leading scientific observers in the early nineteenth century. The paper covers new ground in showing that Professor Samuel L. Mitchill, formerly of Columbia College, had concluded that two main groups of people once dominated the Americas—the Tartars of northern Asia and the Australasians of the Polynesian islands. Furthermore, they fought one another for many years, culminating in great battles of extermination in what later became upstate New York. This New York theory has much in common with the Book of Mormon. While visiting Professor Charles Anthon in New York in 1828, Martin Harris also met with Mitchill, an encounter that lent support to Harris’s work on the Book of Mormon."

[Glenn101]

 

   The Book of Mormon story line is not a "Lost Tribes" story line. That is actually pointed out in the text.

 

Glenn

Edited July 29, 2017 by Glenn101
spelling

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

This commonly held belief was born out of the bigotry and racism of that era.  Early Americans could not conceive that the Native (Dark and Loathsome)  American populations could be responsible for the vast network of interconnecting roads, villages , mounds and defensive structures the whites discovered spread across America...surely, in their minds, only a White and Delightsome people could have built something so great and vast.  It has to be the Lost Tribes of Israel .  Joseph coopted his widely held point of view, including the racism, into his Book of Mormon.

One of the greatest offensive ideas to come from the Book of Mormon is the notion that dark skinned Native Americans were not capable of building the great cities, temples, archeological discoveries in the Americas...that it had to somehow be attributed to the white and delightsome Nephites 

As a bigot yourself I would think you would appreciate the artistry of what we did.