Simon Southerton's New Book

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

Who knows? The following verse suggests that Lehi's party was alone.

And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance. (2 Nephi 1:8)

It does?  

[rockpond]

34 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

It does?  

At that time, yes, it does. 

[Fair Dinkum]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well, if you don't know the difference between modern DNA and aDNA, I can't help you.  I had wrongly assumed that you knew the difference between testing modern people, on the one hand, and testing skeletal remains from thousands of years ago, on the other.  If that seems odd, perhaps you might want to take an anthropology class which deals with DNA there at a university in Australia (when the bushfires are out), as I did at UCLA.

As for the remainder of my comments, I thought I was pretty clear.  Obviously not. 

Perhaps something has been lost in translation, It was never my intent to offend or upset you mate, I was merely asking for clarification.  You speak with authority as if you understand the science.  I'm fine with that.  I get that you are being flippant, but yes I do understand the difference between modern and ancient DNA.  Do you understand that every 'modern' human being carries with them traces of their ancient ancestry called Ancestry Informative Markers or AIMs?  This genetic tool is used in the field of population genetics to determine the relative relationship derived from dissimilar inherited populations.  Modern humans carry these markers.  Even you carry this marker.  From YOUR markers a population geneticist can determine the various ancient populations that even you descended from.

Studies in modern Amerindian populations using AIMs can determine the ancient source populations of these modern individuals. To date, no middle eastern ancient source DNA has been detected in any genetic study.  Sorry but that's the science. The study that I earlier stated from was the largest study of its kind ever conducted on native populations.  They did not need any ancient DNA to determine the source populations of these modern individuals, since each of the individuals in the study carried their own AIMs from which the source of the populations these individuals derived from is held. And as I've already mentioned, there was no DNA in the ancient populations that came from the middle east.

Where as only a few years ago examining our ancient AIMs was limited to only 1 male and 1 female line. This is no longer the case.  Science has moved past that obstacle.  Science can now examine all of our forefather and mother going back generations. This can't be news to such a learned individual such as yourself.

I repeat, that yes, if middle eastern DNA had been present in the aforementioned study, it would have been detected.  And yes I know of what I speak.

The area between these two outside lines was once the area that LDS apologists lived within and cast their skepticism of DNA from.  But this areas has been opened up and geneticist can now explore it, leaving no where for the LDS apologist to hide in.  It's a whole new world.

Edited January 15, 2020 by Fair Dinkum

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, Thinking said:

Who knows? The following verse suggests that Lehi's party was alone.

 Nephi 1:8
 8 And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet
from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations
would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an
inheritance.

 

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

It does?  

 

53 minutes ago, rockpond said:

At that time, yes, it does. 

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Calm]

49 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

But this areas has been opened up and geneticist can now explore it, leaving no where for the LDS apologist to hide in.  It's a whole new world.

I just don't see how you can claim that when there is a limit of 1 in 100,000 given (you quoted where it was stated traces could be found between 1 in 10,00and 1 in 100,000 if my brain is working sufficiently to recall that correctly) and even just 20 generations or 500 years gets one past that.

Oh well, more reading along with antibiotics may help me understand this better.

 

[Rajah Manchou]

5 hours ago, Metis_LDS said:

I need more information about the good side of the Lamanites.  Please do not quote me anything from the BOM about them I already know what is there.

My reading of the Lamanites is a positive one. Hugh Nibley proposed that the Lehites were of the Rechabite tradition, or at the very least followed the Rechabite practice of dwelling in tents outside Jerusalem. (source)

This is speculative, but I believe Laman and Lemuel (following their marriages to the daughters of Ishmael) carried the traditions of the Rechabites with them to the Promised Land. This is why we see the Lamanites not engaging in much agriculture while continuing to dwell in tents long after their arrival. The Nephites of course looked down on their practices and considered them to be uncivilised. But in Judeo-Christian Rechabite lore, the Rechabites were the good guys. The History of the Rechabites (Narrative of Zosimus) follows a group of 6th century BC Israelites across the ocean to an island where they live simple and pure and righteous lives, going around unclothed, living wild in the open, and not growing crops. I believe this account to be an account of descendants of Laman, and in fact this group of people was known in the Slavonic apocrypha as the Raman, just one letter difference. 

If you're interested in the text describing these people, you can find it here.

Edited January 15, 2020 by Rajah Manchou

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

 

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

What do you interpret "this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations" to mean?

For me, it means that God was keeping the land a secret from other people so that those He sent there (Lehites, Jaredites, and Mulekites) could possess it as an inheritance.  Presumably, until they ceased to dwell in righteousness and lost their inheritance.

[webbles]

23 minutes ago, rockpond said:

What do you interpret "this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations" to mean?

For me, it means that God was keeping the land a secret from other people so that those He sent there (Lehites, Jaredites, and Mulekites) could possess it as an inheritance.  Presumably, until they ceased to dwell in righteousness and lost their inheritance.

Nephi is writing that verse and he doesn't yet know about the Mulekites or Jaredites.  So we can't take that verse to mean that only the Lehites get the land (since the Book of Mormon directly contradicts that).  The verse then means that it is shown to who those chosen by the Lord.  Which could mean that the Lord only chose the Jaredites, Mulekites, and Lehites or it could mean that He chose many more groups of people.  As for why these other groups aren't mentioned explicitly in the Book of Mormon, it could be because the Lehites either never met them, they weren't important to the story (Mulekites are important because they show the fulfillment of Lehi's prophecy which is important to the Nephites right to rule of the Lamanites), they were met by the Lamanites after the Nephites had separated and the Nephites just assumed that the new people were other members of the Lamanites, or other reasons.

[Kenngo1969]

39 minutes ago, rockpond said:

What do you interpret "this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations" to mean?

For me, it means that God was keeping the land a secret from other people so that those He sent there (Lehites, Jaredites, and Mulekites) could possess it as an inheritance.  Presumably, until they ceased to dwell in righteousness and lost their inheritance.

If I tell you, "Rockpond, this is just between you and me," and I find out later that another party knows about what I told you in confidence, have I exhausted the possibilities and been fair to you by concluding that you broke our confidence, becoming upset with you, and determining that your breaking of our confidence justifies severing our relationship?

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, webbles said:

Nephi is writing that verse and he doesn't yet know about the Mulekites or Jaredites.  So we can't take that verse to mean that only the Lehites get the land (since the Book of Mormon directly contradicts that).  The verse then means that it is shown to who those chosen by the Lord.  Which could mean that the Lord only chose the Jaredites, Mulekites, and Lehites or it could mean that He chose many more groups of people.  As for why these other groups aren't mentioned explicitly in the Book of Mormon, it could be because the Lehites either never met them, they weren't important to the story (Mulekites are important because they show the fulfillment of Lehi's prophecy which is important to the Nephites right to rule of the Lamanites), they were met by the Lamanites after the Nephites had separated and the Nephites just assumed that the new people were other members of the Lamanites, or other reasons.

Yes, the covenant made by the Lord with Lehi is that the land would be possessed only by those led their by the Lord.  Textually, that is the Jaredites, Mulekites, and Lehites.  The question that was asked, at least the one that I was responding to, was how does the Book of Mormon text define the word Lamanite.  Going by the text, the Lamanites are those descendants of Lehi and Mulek who were either direct descendants of Laman and Lemuel or who later joined with them (and did not ever leave to join the Nephites).  By the end of the account, circa 400 AD, Lamanites were those descendants of Lehi who fought against the Nephites.

So, while I acknowledge that Lamanite integration with other existing civilizations could be a good way to explain a lack of Middle Eastern DNA in current Native Americans, that explanation does not find support within the text of the Book of Mormon.  Additionally, I am not aware of any contemporary documents or church teachings that would suggest that the term "Lamanite" as used in the D&C and up through the late 1900's meant something other than the Book of Mormon definition.

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If I tell you, "Rockpond, this is just between you and me," and I find out later that another party knows about what I told you in confidence, have I exhausted the possibilities and been fair to you by concluding that you broke our confidence, becoming upset with you, and determining that your breaking of our confidence justifies severing our relationship?

I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

[webbles]

24 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes, the covenant made by the Lord with Lehi is that the land would be possessed only by those led their by the Lord.  Textually, that is the Jaredites, Mulekites, and Lehites.  The question that was asked, at least the one that I was responding to, was how does the Book of Mormon text define the word Lamanite.  Going by the text, the Lamanites are those descendants of Lehi and Mulek who were either direct descendants of Laman and Lemuel or who later joined with them (and did not ever leave to join the Nephites).  By the end of the account, circa 400 AD, Lamanites were those descendants of Lehi who fought against the Nephites.

So, while I acknowledge that Lamanite integration with other existing civilizations could be a good way to explain a lack of Middle Eastern DNA in current Native Americans, that explanation does not find support within the text of the Book of Mormon.  Additionally, I am not aware of any contemporary documents or church teachings that would suggest that the term "Lamanite" as used in the D&C and up through the late 1900's meant something other than the Book of Mormon definition.

Textually, the Book of Mormon only mentions those three.  But it doesn't limit to those three.

By circa 200AD (4 Nephi 1:36-38), Nephite meant believer and Lamanite meant unbeliever.  It no longer meant descendant.  It had no lineage aspect to it anymore.  So if there were other groups, then those that believed in Christ were Nephites (whether they were Jaredites, Lehites, Mulekites, etc) and everyone else on the entire American continent were Lamanites.

Calling the Native Americans "Lamanites" is perfectly acceptable whatever their lineage.  They were non-believers and lived in the Americas.  Mormon and Moroni would have definitely called them Lamanites.

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, webbles said:

Textually, the Book of Mormon only mentions those three.  But it doesn't limit to those three.

Correct.  The text doesn't limit it because the text does not acknowledge any other people on the continent.  Thus, defining Lamanite to include people aside from Lehite/Mulekite descendants (while potentially a valid conclusion) is outside the text.

8 minutes ago, webbles said:

By circa 200AD (4 Nephi 1:36-38), Nephite meant believer and Lamanite meant unbeliever.  It no longer meant descendant.  It had no lineage aspect to it anymore.  So if there were other groups, then those that believed in Christ were Nephites (whether they were Jaredites, Lehites, Mulekites, etc) and everyone else on the entire American continent were Lamanites.

I agree that Nephite/Lamanite referred to their belief and alignment status rather than ancestry but, contextually, it still referred to Lehites as no other peoples are acknowledged.

8 minutes ago, webbles said:

Calling the Native Americans "Lamanites" is perfectly acceptable whatever their lineage.  They were non-believers and lived in the Americas.  Mormon and Moroni would have definitely called them Lamanites.

I disagree that Mormon and Moroni would have called any other Native American "Lamanites".  We don't know that because they never speak of other people.  I'm not arguing against the possible existence of other people having integrated with the Lehite/Mulekite descendants, I'm just saying that such a conclusion has no specific support in the text of the Book of Mormon.  There is nothing in the text that refers to other people joining them.

[webbles]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

Correct.  The text doesn't limit it because the text does not acknowledge any other people on the continent.  Thus, defining Lamanite to include people aside from Lehite/Mulekite descendants (while potentially a valid conclusion) is outside the text.

I agree that Nephite/Lamanite referred to their belief and alignment status rather than ancestry but, contextually, it still referred to Lehites as no other peoples are acknowledged.

I disagree that Mormon and Moroni would have called any other Native American "Lamanites".  We don't know that because they never speak of other people.  I'm not arguing against the possible existence of other people having integrated with the Lehite/Mulekite descendants, I'm just saying that such a conclusion has no specific support in the text of the Book of Mormon.  There is nothing in the text that refers to other people joining them.

I think this basically boils down to: you don't see "others" in the Book of Mormon while I do.  So to me, the "others" is not outside of the text.  It is inside the text.  It just isn't as obvious as the Lehites, Mulekites, and Jaredites.  I do believe the Book of Mormon supports the existence of "others".  And since "others" are in the Book of Mormon, I believe that Mormon would call Native Americans "Lamanites" because they are according to his definition.

[rockpond]

19 minutes ago, webbles said:

I think this basically boils down to: you don't see "others" in the Book of Mormon while I do.  So to me, the "others" is not outside of the text.  It is inside the text.

Which chapter and verse refers to the "others"?

19 minutes ago, webbles said:

It just isn't as obvious as the Lehites, Mulekites, and Jaredites.  I do believe the Book of Mormon supports the existence of "others". 

I respect and don't necessarily disagree with your belief on this.  And while I find it possible, I don't know what text in the Book of Mormon I can find to support it.  That's all I'm saying.  If you can cite the text that identifies other people commingling with the Lamanites, I will stand corrected.  Perhaps I've missed it.

[webbles]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Which chapter and verse refers to the "others"?

I respect and don't necessarily disagree with your belief on this.  And while I find it possible, I don't know what text in the Book of Mormon I can find to support it.  That's all I'm saying.  If you can cite the text that identifies other people commingling with the Lamanites, I will stand corrected.  Perhaps I've missed it.

As I said, "It just isn't as obvious as the Lehites, Mulekites, and Jaredites."  I can't point to a single verse that refers to the "others".  https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/did-others-influence-book-of-mormon-peoples has a few examples of what I'm talking about.

I also respect that you don't see "others" in the Book of Mormon.  It isn't meant to be a genealogical analysis of the peopling of the Americas.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, webbles said:

As I said, "It just isn't as obvious as the Lehites, Mulekites, and Jaredites."  I can't point to a single verse that refers to the "others".

This is what I mean by it being outside the text.

4 minutes ago, webbles said:

https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/did-others-influence-book-of-mormon-peoples has a few examples of what I'm talking about.

It makes sense to me that other people lived in the same lands as the Lehites before, during, and after Book of Mormon times.  But I don't see any evidence of this belief being an official church position prior to the time when the Book of Mormon introduction was changed.

4 minutes ago, webbles said:

I also respect that you don't see "others" in the Book of Mormon.  It isn't meant to be a genealogical analysis of the peopling of the Americas.

I don't see it in the actual text.  But I see it in logical and scientific evidence.

[Fair Dinkum]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

I just don't see how you can claim that when there is a limit of 1 in 100,000 given (you quoted where it was stated traces could be found between 1 in 10,00and 1 in 100,000 if my brain is working sufficiently to recall that correctly) and even just 20 generations or 500 years gets one past that.

Oh well, more reading along with antibiotics may help me understand this better.

 

Go back and review the church’s DNA essay. They are arguing that less than 2% of DNA or 20 individuals, 1 male line and 1 female line can be accessed out of the 1,024 individuals in a 10 generation family tree. This simply is not true.  All 1,024 can be studied.   But it is within this nonexistent void that the church has put its apologetic arguments to explain away its lack of supportive DNA problem.  

[InCognitus]

9 hours ago, rockpond said:

In the Book of Mormon context, everyone eventually unites with either the Nephites or the Lamanites.  But, everyone is either a Lehite or a Jaredite (after Coriantumr dies and there are no more Mulekites).  Lehites and Jaredites all become Nephites and Lamanites (by name).  But genetically still all from the middle East, per the text.

Please provide the reference “per the text” of the Book of Mormon where it says "all" members of the group “Lamanites” are genetically from the middle East.

9 hours ago, rockpond said:

If one wants to make the argument that the Lamanites could have intermarried with other indigenous people, that's fine, but it is going outside of the text (which seems to make a big deal of encountering other peoples).

The absence of references to outside people is not evidence against the existence of outside people, so it would be equally going outside the text to claim that there were no outside people.  But the text does give us numerous clues that intermingling with outside people actually happened, particularly with the Lamanites.

9 hours ago, rockpond said:

The Book of Mormon record ends circa 400 AD but revelation referring to Lamanites picks up again some 1,400 years later in the D&C.  Since the D&C doesn't re-define the term Lamanite we meed tp assume that it is continuing to use it the way it was used in the Book of Mormon, where the word originated.  So, if one wants to claim that latter day references to Lamanites are identifying Native American populations into which a relatively small proportion of Lamanites have integrated then, once again, that is going outside of the texts that we have.

The Doctrine and Covenants (and parts of the Book of Mormon) refers to the Lamanites as a "remnant".  A remnant, by definition, is a small leftover portion.  Contrast that to the "Lamanite" population of the western hemisphere (as it has been understood in the past), which is vast.  I'm pretty sure that "remnant" in this case doesn't mean that every single person who is called a "Lamanite" is a genetic descendant of Lehi, because late in the Book of Mormon text it is a remarkable thing to have such ancestry, even for a Nephite.  

Edited January 15, 2020 by InCognitus

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Cut and pasting pseudo-science links from Wikipedia disqualifies my opinions?  Science is never settled, it is always pushing the envelope forward in an ever expanding push towards the truth.  Unlike fixed dogma, it allows for the abandonment of once cherished truths when the evidence so dictates.

Welcome to the board but sorry to have to point this out- this is a contradiction.   If science is "never settled" then in principle it cannot be "expanding toward truth" as an unchanging reality.  

 I would not care except these notions are so pervasive and these kind of beliefs can lead to a dogmatic and confused way of seeing the world

As you point out yourself, science is always subject to revision and therefore there is no "truth" which cannot be revised.  The best we can do is peer review in which all or many experts in their fields.   There may be cherished beliefs, but that is the best we can do.  That assumes of course that "truth" is unchanging and something which CAN in principle be eventually fixed, but that does not account for the changes in the very way we see and speak about the world which IS constantly changing.

Language itself will always be changing, like it or not, and all "truth" is based in language- truth is a justified belief or statement but the good old "correspondence theory of truth" simply doesn't work well any more when one gets down to brass tacks.

WE are the creators of what is considered "true"- it is not something "out there" in the world waiting to be found.

Perhaps you might read my siggy down below this and all my posts, quoting Richard Rorty, whose views on these matters I accept.

Edited January 15, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Kenngo1969]

6 hours ago, rockpond said:

I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

Okay.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Go back and review the church’s DNA essay. They are arguing that less than 2% of DNA or 20 individuals, 1 male line and 1 female line can be accessed out of the 1,024 individuals in a 10 generation family tree. This simply is not true.  All 1,024 can be studied.   But it is within this nonexistent void that the church has put its apologetic arguments to explain away its lack of supportive DNA problem.  

Looked at the article and footnotes and not seeing this.  Please explain or quote.

 The closest thing I can see is the reference to the Icelandic study, but that is an nontheoretical example of the problem being discussed and not a full treatment of the issue covering the relevant time period.  So part of the equation in my view, but not all of it.  

What does a 10 generation family tree (250-300 years) have to do with a discussion about a text from 1400 to 2500 years ago that would create a family tree of 100 generations?

Quote

Genetic drift particularly affects mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome DNA, but it also leads to the loss of variation in autosomal DNA. When a small population mixes with a large one, combinations of autosomal markers typical of the smaller group become rapidly overwhelmed or swamped by those of the larger. The smaller group’s markers soon become rare in the combined population and may go extinct due to the effects of genetic drift and bottlenecks as described above. Moreover, the shuffling and recombination of autosomal DNA from generation to generation produces new combinations of markers in which the predominant genetic signal comes from the larger original population. This can make the combinations of markers characteristic of the smaller group so diluted that they cannot be reliably identified.

The authors of a 2008 paper in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology summarized the impact of these forces succinctly: “Genetic drift has been a significant force [on Native American genetics], and together with a major population crash after European contact, has altered haplogroup frequencies and caused the loss of many haplotypes.”25Genetic profiles may be entirely lost, and combinations that once existed may become so diluted that they are difficult to detect. Thus, portions of a population may in fact be related genealogically to an individual or group but not have DNA that can be identified as belonging to those ancestors. In other words, Native Americans whose ancestors include Book of Mormon peoples may not be able to confirm that relationship using their DNA.26

Are you saying because this loss of profiles is invalid now due to ability to identify smaller traces up to 1 part in 100,000 for a 10 generation (300 years) population, it is also invalid for a 100 generation population?  As in markers will never go extinct?  Are you claiming haplotypes will never be lost?

Just out of curiosity because I found the Icelandic study fascinating from a genealogical POV, have they revisited those subjects with the upgraded tech?  Anyone know?

Add on:  they are relatively certain they have Charlemagne's remains.  It would be interesting if there is any viable DNA to do a scan and then take a cross section of Europeans (all of whom if of European heritage have a very high probability of having him as an ancestor) and seeing what percentage share markers with him.  Or do this anywhere with some well attested bones of someone dead over 1000 years or more known to have had a number of children and grandchildren and most probable descendants.  Iirc, they have connected unknown remains in similar ways, but performing the test where a connection is documented in other ways, I don't remember anything that far back....but not that familiar with the field.  Not saying this would mean every shared marker came from him as it could come from a shared ancestor whose marker persisted while Charlemagne's version got dumped in all the recombining of genes in reproduction.

Edited January 15, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

Off topic perhaps, but interesting story of NA DNA marker found in 80 modern icelanders, marker entering into the population probably around 1000 AD.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/11/101123-native-american-indian-vikings-iceland-genetic-dna-science-europe/

Edited January 15, 2020 by Calm

[smac97]

14 hours ago, Thinking said:

Who knows? The following verse suggests that Lehi's party was alone.

Quote

And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance. (2 Nephi 1:8)

 

What "nations" do you have in mind?

Meanwhile, I have previously found these articles illuminating:

Nephi’s Neighbors: Book of Mormon Peoples and Pre-Columbian Populations (Matthew Roper)

When Lehi's Party Arrived in the Land, Did They Find Others There? (John L. Sorenson)

Both articles reference the story of Sherem, which the authors think (correctly, in my view) suggests that Lehi's party was not alone.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Kevin Christensen]

I was just getting the link to Roper's Nephi's Neighbors.  There is also Brant's excellent "The Social History of the Early Nephites".

https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/social-history-early-nephites

If you read 2 Nephi 1 very carefully, and pay attention to context, the specific blessings and associated covenant curses, it should become very obvious that the notion that the Nephi's would have the land to themselves, secure from "other nations"  (not other "people"-- Villages are not nations) is only non-exclusive (it includes whoever the Lord leads there), and, conditional. 

Quote

Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me Lehi, and to my children forever, and also all those who should be led out of other countries. (2 Nephi 1:5)

If you read the conditions in Lehi's blesssing and consider the history, it should become apparent that the conditions were broken from almost the start.

I wrote about this in 1995:

Quote

Lehi's promise that his children would possess the land unmolested was conditional on their keeping the commandments (2 Nephi 1 :9). The next verses say that "when . . they shall dwindle in unbelief' (not "long afterwards," but "when"), the Lord "will bring other nations ... and he will take away from the m the lands of their possessions, and he will cause them to be scattered and smitten. Yea, as one generation passeth to another, there shall be bloodsheds" (2 Nephi 1: 10-12). Second Nephi 5:2- 5 reports that soon after the death of Lehi-the passing of a generation-Nephi's brothers plotted against his own life. Nephi and those he called "his people" fled the land. Despite the report that those who initially left "were those who believed" in God (2 Nephi 5:6), such passages as 2 Nephi 32:7 and 2 Nephi 33:1- 3 suggest strongly that Nephi's people had problems of their own. For example. Jacob reports on the necessity for "diligent" labor among them on the part of the prophets (Jacob I :7) even before Jacob 2: 15 describes the beginning of extreme tendencies. Prior to the departure of Nephi's people, the Lamanites had already acted in a role as "a scourge to [Nephi's people], to stir them up in remembrance of me" (2 Nephi 5:25), Although neither Nephi nor Jacob provides details, Jacob 1: I 0 describes Nephi as having "wielded the sword of Laban" in defense of his people. Thus we have no record of the conditions for blessing being fully kept, and significant information suggesting that the covenant curse was in effect almost from the time of the death of Lehi. That is, immediately after the death of Lehi (the passing of that generation), we see the loss of lands and scattering (2 Nephi 5:5), and smiting and blood-sheds (2 Nephi 5:25, 34 , Jacob I : 10). What about the "other nations"? Alerted by the work of Sorenson and others, we have only to look with eyes that see.

And there is this:

Quote

Why does Lchi make this point about others being led to the land? He very likely knew about them. Nephi's vision of the promised land, granted before the ocean voyage, may refer to these others: And it came to pass that the angel said unto me: Look, and behold thy seed, and also the seed of thy bret hren. And I looked and beheld the land of pro mise; and I beheld multitudes of people, even as it were in number as many as the sands of the sea. ( 1 Nephi 12: I)

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/msr/vol7/iss2/9/

John Tvedtnes and others have pointed out that in Hebrew "the land" is typically quite localized.  Think about how Benjamin sends out messengers to have all the people of the land gather on "the morrow."   That does not mean a continental gathering, but time for messengers to go and people to come the next day.

And Jacob, a first generation writer, says that in his record "Lamanite" means not friendly to Nephi.  It is political in the text from Jacob on.

It is easy to point to LDS leaders and texts that supposed otherwise, but the real question is not whether they said such things, or believed such things, but whether they were correct, and whether we should be bound to what they say on grounds that "surely a prophet or GA or CES teacher would know!"   Those who make such assertions or assumptions, never quote or account for D&C 1:

Quote

Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

And there is also the issue of tracing lineages in Iceland, where the DNA tests cannot account for most lines just 200 years back, where Iceland offered a far more isolated population and far more extensive geneologies than we have for the New World, where the time depth and population problem is far more complex.  There is an excellent FARMS Review essay on this, but it is harder to find since the Maxwell overhaul.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA