Origins: Native Americans as a Lost Tribe

[Bernard Gui]

On 7/28/2017 at 9:26 AM, 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    

Post-Jesus' resurrection Lehites were all "white."

Edited July 30, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Johnnie Cake]

On 7/28/2017 at 10:31 AM, RevTestament said:

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.

The skin language is figurative?   Really? Which is why all lamenite's can be easily identified by their white and delightsome white skin color right?  In all seriousness Can you identify a single claimed white lamenite? 

[USU78]

56 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

The skin language is figurative?   Really? Which is why all lamenite's can be easily identified by their white and delightsome white skin color right?  In all seriousness Can you identify a single claimed white lamenite? 

Explain Alma 55, per your fundamentalist view, then.

[Honorentheos]

The problem that the Book of Mormon perpetuates to this day is being demonstrated on this thread. Native Americans have clear genetic, archeological, and anthropological roots that do not extend into Judaism in any form, pre-exilic or otherwise. The belief that they were not the heirs of the complex civilizations apparent in the archeological record thus requiring other explanation is echoed on this thread when people describe some Native Americans as appearing European or having other traits that imply a value system that favors western Judeo-Christian origins.

Just saying that the BoM has something to tell us about the history of Native Americans is about on par with saying Battlefield Earth has something to tell us about human origins. Ok.

[Honorentheos]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Explain Alma 55, per your fundamentalist view, then.

Alma 55:31 But behold, the Nephites were not slow to remember the Lord their God in this their time of affliction. They could not be taken in their snares; yea, they would not partake of their wine, save they had first given to some of the Lamanite prisoners.

32 And they were thus cautious that no poison should be administered among them; for if their wine would poison a Lamanite it would also poison a Nephite; and thus they did try all their liquors.

Good point. That one is a real head scratcher.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

The skin language is figurative?   Really? Which is why all lamenite's can be easily identified by their white and delightsome white skin color right?  In all seriousness Can you identify a single claimed white lamenite? 

Yes. These in 3 Nephi 2 and every Lamanite after Jesus' visit. 

"14 And it came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites;
15 And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;
16 And their young men and their daughters became exceedingly fair, and they were numbered among the Nephites, and were called Nephites."

Edited July 30, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Honorentheos]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Explain Alma 55, per your fundamentalist view, then.

Joking aside, why would Moroni need to find someone who was descended from Laman in order to infiltrate the Lamanites if not because he needed him to look like a Lamanite?

[Calm]

42 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

Joking aside, why would Moroni need to find someone who was descended from Laman in order to infiltrate the Lamanites if not because he needed him to look like a Lamanite?

Because he needed him to sound like a Lamanite.

Why didn't they need the rest of the group be Lamanites as well and not just the one speaker?

[The Nehor]

17 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Your post is a perfect example of the double standard on this board. I would be banned for a comment like this towards another board member while you, a valued believer, carry on with impunity. 

The old playground defense applies here: "You started it."  

[Honorentheos]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Because he needed him to sound like a Lamanite.

Why didn't they need the rest of the group be Lamanites as well and not just the one speaker?

Bad writing is my argument.

The problem with arguing the person needed to sound like a Lamanite is Moroni was not looking for a recent dissenter from the Lamanites but someone descended from Laman. Language and accent would not be genetic but cultural. Skin color, appearance would be genetic.

Either way, the narrative is poor though. I can't help but imagine the Lamanite walking up to this band of guards and saying, "Hey I'm a Lamanite! It's ok! Let's get a move on. Oh, you want to drink our wine? Maybe we should wait...ok ok, drink up!" all while a bunch of skulking Nephites in cloaks hang out in the background. The idea they had a big drink fest long enough the guards passed out where this one Lamanite turncoat is only the required cover while the others remain quiet or with in the background is just laughable. (And let's not forget this was a cohort of guards over a very large group of people. So large they are described as greatly enhancing Moroni's army once freed).

So yeah, bad writing. There's no other way to look at it.

 

ETA: I challenge the people who gave you rep points for this comment to defend themselves. That's just silly.

Edited July 30, 2017 by Honorentheos

[RevTestament]

5 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

The skin language is figurative?   Really? Which is why all lamenite's can be easily identified by their white and delightsome white skin color right?  In all seriousness Can you identify a single claimed white lamenite? 

I have identified LDS by their white countenance, yes. This happened at a home show I went to while I was inactive. I ended up buying some enzyme powder that was extremely helpful to my colicky son. Out of the thousands of people there I felt one of the salespersons was LDS. Is anyone supposed to believe that Zelph's skin color actually changed? But to those who are righteous, someone else's bright countenance is visible. 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 7/29/2017 at 1:24 PM, omni said:

The prevailing interpretation has always been (and I would argue remains so today) that the "skin of blackness" was referring to a literal change in skin color.

.....................................................  

As Brant Gardner has pointed out on this board,

Quote

There is no action in the text [2 Nephi 5:21] that ever hinges on skin color. The situation where Captain Moroni is looking for a Lamanite [Alma 55] is the best proof text here. He specifically needs a Lamanite, and sends one with two Nephites to the Lamanite guards. If there were skin color involved, it should have been rather obvious that the two Nephites accompanying the Lamanite were "not like the other" (in Sesame Street language). 

When you combine the data with the use of white (and no one has white skin, not even albinos) skin, it is quite obvious that the only textually appropriate solution is metaphorical (this includes the ability to change from a skin of blackness to white with the simple declaration of a change in allegiance, something rather impossible in human biology).

The actual text does not support the literal reading. So far, your evidence is that you say so. I'm sorry, but that just isn't sufficient.  http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/57384-the-hill-cumorah/page__st__40 .  See also Gardner, Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History (SLC: Kofford, 2015), 154-164, for full discussion.

2 Nephi 5:21, “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.”

That this is metaphorical should be apparent from the language used elsewhere in the Book of Mormon, and from similar biblical texts:

2 Nephi 30:6, “their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white [pure] and delightsome people.”
Acts 9:18, “And  immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith”
Daniel 12:10 "Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried"
Psalm 51:2,7 “Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. . . . Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.”

Lamentations 4:7–8 “Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphire:  Their visage is blacker than a coal; they are not known in the streets: their skin cleaveth to their bones; it is withered, it is become like a stick.”

Song of Songs 1:5-6 “I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon.  Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me: my mother’s children were angry with me;”

Alma 32:42, “ And because of your diligence and your faith and your patience with the word in nourishing it, that it may take root in you, behold, by and by ye shall pluck the fruit thereof, which is most precious, which is sweet above all that is sweet, and which is white above all that is white, yea, and pure above all that is pure; and ye shall feast upon this fruit even until ye are filled, that ye hunger not, neither shall ye thirst.”

Mormon 5:15, “this people shall be scattered, and shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, . . and this because of their unbelief and idolatry.”  16, “For behold, the Spirit of the Lord hath already ceased to strive with their fathers; . . .” 17, “They were once a delightsome people, and they had Christ for their shepherd; . . .”

In the case of the Amlicites, they set the mark upon themselves (Alma 3:13-19), not realizing that they were fufilling the curse of God.

Indeed, as pointed out in detail by Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert, CWHN V:73-74, this metaphorical style of referring to one's countenance was quite common among the Bedouin.

Edited July 31, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Honorentheos]

Just to be clear here. We're not discussing if the Church ever taught this was the case but that you all do not believe the text requires it, right? It's challenging to understand how one avoids the historic teachings and still imagines the concept of modern day prophets has meaning but it is a different argument than if the Book of Mormon itself demands it. I do think the text is clear, and it was taught as scriptural by past leaders as recently as thirty years ago by the then-prophet himself.

As to the slightly different argument regarding the text. what about Jacob 3:5?

Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins,...

Seems pretty clear.

Or 2 Nephi 5:23 that says -

And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing.

Seems pretty clear the curse is passed on through making a baby, and the one cursed is the baby.

This seems like a stretch to avoid accepting what the BoM itself says and what past prophets asserted to be.

Why?

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

Just to be clear here. We're not discussing if the Church ever taught this was the case but that you all do not believe the text requires it, right? It's challenging to understand how one avoids the historic teachings and still imagines the concept of modern day prophets has meaning but it is a different argument than if the Book of Mormon itself demands it. I do think the text is clear, and it was taught as scriptural by past leaders as recently as thirty years ago by the then-prophet himself.

As to the slightly different argument regarding the text. what about Jacob 3:5?

Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins,...

Seems pretty clear.

Or 2 Nephi 5:23 that says -

And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing.

Seems pretty clear the curse is passed on through making a baby, and the one cursed is the baby.

This seems like a stretch to avoid accepting what the BoM itself says and what past prophets asserted to be.

Why?

The problem is not facts, but the interpretation of facts.  The Bible itself was made to justify slavery.  One can always be honestly mistaken about something -- particularly if the culture demands it.  Presentism makes fallible humans so easily blameworthy.

A full spectrum analysis of the facts, including Gen Moroni's mission in Alma 55, ought to disabuse us of such easy interpretations.  There are none so blind as they who will not see.

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎7‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 3:26 PM, Darren10 said:

Oh, I don't know. You once carried on just fine after calling someone, even by inference, a homophobe. 

And, hehehe, you said "wanker".

This is the 2nd time you've said this. As I recall last time, you were unable to show that I called you a "homophobe" but stated your words bordered on homophobic. Do you see any difference? In case you don't, I'll explain. One is calling you something--homophobe. The other is describing a behavior- "bordering" on homophobic. One is name calling, the other isn't. Give it a rest, man. That was months ago.

[Kevin Christensen]

10 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

Just to be clear here. We're not discussing if the Church ever taught this was the case but that you all do not believe the text requires it, right? It's challenging to understand how one avoids the historic teachings and still imagines the concept of modern day prophets has meaning but it is a different argument than if the Book of Mormon itself demands it. I do think the text is clear, and it was taught as scriptural by past leaders as recently as thirty years ago by the then-prophet himself.

As to the slightly different argument regarding the text. what about Jacob 3:5?

Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins,...

Seems pretty clear.

Or 2 Nephi 5:23 that says -

And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing.

Seems pretty clear the curse is passed on through making a baby, and the one cursed is the baby.

This seems like a stretch to avoid accepting what the BoM itself says and what past prophets asserted to be.

Why?

Notice that depending on soil and nurture, the same seeds (words) can provide radically different yields.  Jesus commented of the importance of that parable, "Know ye not this parable?  How then shall ye know all parables?"  There is a difference between carefully contextualizing in order to read better, and selective presentist proof-texting.

Try this:

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎7‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 10:25 PM, smac97 said:

I did not intend to be condescending.  I apologize for coming across that way.  Honest.

Cool. Thanks

Okay.  Yet now that you appear to recognize your assumption was erroneous, and that this assumption is both unsupported and contradicted by the scriptures and the teachings of the Church, you still seem to be finding fault.

I agreed that I was making some incorrect assumptions. I was simply trying to show how I arrived at those assumptions. I don't think they were ridiculous assumptions to make and therefore don't really speak to a person's intellect or faithfulness.

I don't want to alienate you (further), so I won't press this point except to respectfully request that you reconsider your position in light of your updated understanding of this issue.

I quite agree.  But then what's your beef?  The LDS Church teaches that a very small group of pre-exilic Israelites sailed from the Arabian Peninsula to somewhere in the Americas, that over centuries they developed into, generally speaking, two social/cultural groups (Nephites and Lamanites), that the former eventually wiped out the latter, and that these people "are among the ancestors of the American Indians."  We've known this for quite a while.  So are you suggesting that 19th-century curiosity about the origins of the Native Americans somehow constitutes evidence of The Book of Mormon being fabricated by Joseph Smith and/or contemporary hucksters?

No beef but you are reading a lot into my original question. I never said anything about fabrication. But I do think that JS was influenced by his time and culture, of which the lost tribe/Israelite Indians was a part. It had been a part of the culture and in some cases religious teachings for a couple of hundred years prior to the BoM describing how Israelites came to be the Native Americans.

I did not intend to make it with "superiority."  I was trying to be civil and respectful.

Thanks,

-Smac

As I stated, I thought your point was very good. But it may have lost some of it's impact because of the way it was presented.

[Johnnie Cake]

20 hours ago, USU78 said:

Explain Alma 55, per your fundamentalist view, then.

What that Lamen was a lamanite?

[USU78]

4 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

What that Lamen was a lamanite?

... and that Laman the Lamanite was indistinguishable from his Nephite teammates until he opened his mouth.

Edited July 31, 2017 by USU78

[Johnnie Cake]

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The old playground defense applies here: "You started it."  

Pretty sure I've never called you a bigot or any other name for that matter.  In fact I try to be respectful in my post towards other posters...despite our opposing POV

[Johnnie Cake]

30 minutes ago, USU78 said:

... and that Laman the Lamanite was indistinguishable from his Nephite teammates until he opened his mouth.

The BoM makes clear that Lamen was a Lamanite. Alma 55:4  And now it came to pass that when Moroni had said these words, he caused that a search should be made among his men, that perhaps he might find a man who was a descendant of Laman among them.   (for the sake of discussion I'm playing along as if this was real instead of fiction) You're discounting the all kinds of possibilities.  But the answer lays right in Verse 8.  Its evening, the Lamenite sentries see movement.  Someone is coming towards them in the evening, light is low...with low light it is hard to distinguish color of skin...so the Lamenite sentries...are alerted...but Lamen talks to them in their native tongue...and as he approaches they can see that he is a descendant of Lamen and carries the same dark and loathsome skin color that they have.

Note that Moroni didn't send just any body...he searched for a descendant of Lamen among his men...he purposely sent a Lamanite, someone with the same visible skin curse as Lamen...not a Nephite Why? Because he needed someone with the same color skin as those he was going in to spy on.  Other wise he could have sent in any White Nephite...but he didn't...he sent a Lamenite...so that the Lamenite guards would not be alerted to his true mission.

Do you have any more soft balls you need me to hit out of the park?

Edited July 31, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Johnnie Cake]

16 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I have identified LDS by their white countenance, yes. This happened at a home show I went to while I was inactive. I ended up buying some enzyme powder that was extremely helpful to my colicky son. Out of the thousands of people there I felt one of the salespersons was LDS. Is anyone supposed to believe that Zelph's skin color actually changed? But to those who are righteous, someone else's bright countenance is visible. 

I'm often mistaken as a Faithful, Believing Mormon...due to my bright countenance...despite holding to a secular POV.  I love the cognitive dissonance and look of confusion on the faces of believers when I'm approach and asked if I'm a Mormon and I disclose that no I am not...and reply, why do you ask?

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I'm often mistaken as a Faithful, Believing Mormon...due to my bright countenance...despite holding to a secular POV.  I love the cognitive dissonance and look of confusion on the faces of believers when I'm approach and asked if I'm a Mormon and I disclose that no I am not...and reply, why do you ask?

I get this a lot..many ask me what ward I belong to and when I explain it is hard for some of them..who had assumed for so long that I was an active LDS woman I appreciate though that they ask...a garment feel is a little too friendly for just new found friends.

[Johnnie Cake]

21 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

Just saying that the BoM has something to tell us about the history of Native Americans is about on par with saying Battlefield Earth has something to tell us about human origins. Ok.

Brilliant

[Rajah Manchou]

21 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

Just saying that the BoM has something to tell us about the history of Native Americans is about on par with saying Battlefield Earth has something to tell us about human origins. Ok.

That's a bit much. The Book of Mormon is mostly aligned with what most Americans believed about the history of Native Americans in 1830. 

Besides, its not as far fetched as it seems at first glance. Take the Jaredites for example. They migrated from Mesopotamia around 2500 BC up into the Pontic Steppe and then east across Asia. Around 2500 BC they sailed in boats across the Pacific.

Compare to the Indo-European groups who around the same time departed Mesopotamia up into the Pontic Steppe and migrated east into Asia, likely reaching as far as far as Shandong province. The same province Hugh Nibley has identified as Moriancumer in the Book of Ether. There is plenty of evidence that these migrations took place. Then around 3000-2500 BC Asians sailed across the Pacific in boats. Western Eurasian DNA found in the Pontic Steppe region is quite common in the Americas.

This isn't science fiction.