stemelbow Posted January 15, 2020 Posted January 15, 2020 When did the Nephites or Lamanites encounter others, specifically? How and when could their genetic traces been lost, swallowed up by the others or washed out?
Kevin Christensen Posted January 15, 2020 Posted January 15, 2020 Read the sources. Roper is the most comprehensive and detailed. Archeology says other people were already there when Lehi's little group arrived. (Sorenson and Gardner both go into the evidence.) Roper and Gardner both point out that Jacob's use of Isaiah on the gentiles being their nursing fathers and mothers and being numbered with the house of Israel makes sense only if it had immediate relevance. Read the FARMS Review essays by the patent holding DNA scientists. Quote According to John M. Butler, a forensic DNA scientist, “the majority of the people living today in Iceland had ancestors living only 150 years ago that could not be detected based on the [patrilineal and matrilineal] DNA … yet the genealogical records exist showing that these people lived and were real ancestors.”14 https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/why-hasnt-lehis-dna-been-found And read the Book of Mormon carefully, noting where ever you see indications that others are around. That's what I after I read Sorenson's JBMS 1 essay on the topic. And Roper later did it even better. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA 1
smac97 Posted January 15, 2020 Author Posted January 15, 2020 23 minutes ago, stemelbow said: When did the Nephites or Lamanites encounter others, specifically? Probably immediately. What are your thoughts about Sherem? 23 minutes ago, stemelbow said: How and when could their genetic traces been lost, swallowed up by the others or washed out? Isn't this question addressed in the Church's essay and the BOMC article? Thanks, -Smac
stemelbow Posted January 15, 2020 Posted January 15, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said: Read the sources. Roper is the most comprehensive and detailed. Archeology says other people were already there when Lehi's little group arrived. Others were already where? Is there any indication of intermixing mentioned in the BoM? If so, how soon after their arrival? Quote (Sorenson and Gardner both go into the evidence.) Roper and Gardner both point out that Jacob's use of Isaiah on the gentiles being their nursing fathers and mothers and being numbered with the house of Israel makes sense only if it had immediate relevance. Are we saying that Jacob used what he etched on plates to teach the people around him? It gets confusing when you think the BoM was written for our day. Is their even reason to think that the copying of Isaiah was meant for them? Quote Read the FARMS Review essays by the patent holding DNA scientists. https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/why-hasnt-lehis-dna-been-found After reading that, I think they are better off arguing that old point that the Lamanites must have been magically changed by God genetically and that's why we can't detect any relevant DNA. I found this a little amusing: Quote Some Latter-day Saints may be interested to know that despite the absence of his genetic signature, it remains likely that Lehi and his sons, living in the Americas 2600 years ago, are common ancestors of all Native Americans living today. According to basic statistical calculation and world population estimates, after going back 2000–3000 years, nearly everyone living then is a common ancestor for nearly everyone living now.22 Somehow in their view its likely that Lehi and his sons were in existence all because there is nothing in the genetic studies to indicate their ever were Lehi and his sons in existence. Quote And read the Book of Mormon carefully, noting where ever you see indications that others are around. That's what I after I read Sorenson's JBMS 1 essay on the topic. And Roper later did it even better. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA I think that's called reading into the text something you want or really wish is there. Edited January 15, 2020 by stemelbow
Fair Dinkum Posted January 15, 2020 Posted January 15, 2020 7 hours ago, mfbukowski said: 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. Think of it as Aussie etymology. Of course in a very strict interpretation of the English language, you are correct. I will attempt to tighten my wordsmithing in future posts.
hope_for_things Posted January 15, 2020 Posted January 15, 2020 25 minutes ago, stemelbow said: When did the Nephites or Lamanites encounter others, specifically? How and when could their genetic traces been lost, swallowed up by the others or washed out? The BoM doesn't give evidence for these other groups of people, other than the Mulekites or the Jaredites, there are no other people that the BoM identifies. However, the apologists like to blend what the BoM says, with what science tells us. Essentially, since we know people existed all over the American continents, and we also know that these people clearly didn't come from the middle east, they try to find creative ways to read the BoM text to mean something different than how it has been read traditionally. I'm not saying this is a bad thing necessarily, all religions do this with their sacred texts, they essentially reinterpret the texts over time and relative to their culture. The part that bothers me is when people point out that this new reading runs counter to how earlier church leaders interpreted the text, then some apologists try to dismiss that evidence or make excuses for the earlier church leaders statements. This is dishonest from my perspective. Be open and honest about the history, the evolution of thought, the differing opinions that exist throughout time. People have different perspectives, and thats ok. Quit trying to reconcile all the disparate perspectives into one happy and harmonious whole. Church leaders disagree with each other???? Yes, they do. 1
RevTestament Posted January 15, 2020 Posted January 15, 2020 16 hours ago, Thinking said: Who knows? The following verse suggests that Lehi's party was alone. 14 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said: It does? 14 hours ago, rockpond said: At that time, yes, it does. 13 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said: I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. 11 hours 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. 11 hours 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? Hmm. May I intervene? Somehow, I think I can make Kengo's point better. The verse does not mean there were no people already in the land like most Church leaders have hitherto seemed to have presumed. The land could have already contained a sparse population of family hunter/gatherers like the Adena Culture. The subsequent Hopewell culture has been referred to as the Rome of America at the time, but what other nations knew of it? As far as I am aware... exactly NONE. So, it was kept from the knowledge of other nations exactly as the scripture implies... and incidentally ended at about the time the Book of Mormon ended. Nowhere does the Book of Mormon preclude the existence of another people in the land of promise. In fact it expressly says there was a preexisting culture... the Jaredites. Even though the Jaredite culture was totally destroyed, I somehow doubt every mother would lead their little children into battle... rather they would probably disappear into the woods till the last man died.... if I know anything about mothers. If the Lamanites intermarried with locals they found, that would explain a few things... why their numbers were able to grow so much faster, and why their language got "corrupted" so fast.... just sayin.
stemelbow Posted January 15, 2020 Posted January 15, 2020 6 minutes ago, smac97 said: Probably immediately. What are your thoughts about Sherem? I think there are some assumptions to make in order to see Sherem as one who was not a product of those who left Jerusalem. Saying he came among the Nephites could mean he came from outside the group but it could also mean he went from group to group among the Nephites. I also wonder what sciptures it is said he believed. If he came from outside to the Nephites and told them they were wrong, why would he believe their scriptures? That'd be odd. If the Nephites and Lamanites were a small population getting assimilated into a large one, relatively speaking, then how did the story come out as the Lehites were leaders? It's as if thousands of people in an already established civilization just sat back and let a few dirty rascals boss them around, teach them their religion, as they sat back and let them lead. By the time the Sherem story hits, somehow the groups (the Nephites and the Lamanites) were large enough to be civilizations of sorts, with built up settlements. The time estimates are interesting. Jacob had to have been born sometimes before 570 BC because that is when Lehi died. And since Jacob was born while they were in the wilderness it couldn't have been much after say 590 BC. Somehow it's estimated that Sherem's time was over 140 years after Jacob was born. It's tough to estimate the time that has passed, but that's of course an absurdity. But it does speak to the problematic story found early in the BoM, I think. I certainly don't see a very good argument to be made that Sherem was definitely from a civilization that was in the land before Lehi and company arrived. I mean its possible, but it's really just an assumption. 6 minutes ago, smac97 said: Isn't this question addressed in the Church's essay and the BOMC article? Thanks, -Smac Not specifically. Just generally. Does the text indicate anything that their genetics would be washed out?
stemelbow Posted January 15, 2020 Posted January 15, 2020 19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: The BoM doesn't give evidence for these other groups of people, other than the Mulekites or the Jaredites, there are no other people that the BoM identifies. However, the apologists like to blend what the BoM says, with what science tells us. Essentially, since we know people existed all over the American continents, and we also know that these people clearly didn't come from the middle east, they try to find creative ways to read the BoM text to mean something different than how it has been read traditionally. I'm not saying this is a bad thing necessarily, all religions do this with their sacred texts, they essentially reinterpret the texts over time and relative to their culture. The part that bothers me is when people point out that this new reading runs counter to how earlier church leaders interpreted the text, then some apologists try to dismiss that evidence or make excuses for the earlier church leaders statements. This is dishonest from my perspective. Be open and honest about the history, the evolution of thought, the differing opinions that exist throughout time. People have different perspectives, and thats ok. Quit trying to reconcile all the disparate perspectives into one happy and harmonious whole. Church leaders disagree with each other???? Yes, they do. Yep. I think the one possible story of Sherem actually argues against their point. Somehow the Nephites and Lamanites encountered tons of people already here and were intermixing with them for a few decades (which would mean the genetic Nephites and the Lamanites were very few among very many) and then one guy came teaching this group of people spread out in different settlements, apparently, and they all were believers in the religion of the Nephites. It doesn't really make sense. They are much better off ignoring the elements of the text and just hoping and pretending it really happened. Of course in the end, they are better off seeing the whole story as mythical scripture.
Fair Dinkum Posted January 15, 2020 Posted January 15, 2020 5 hours ago, Calm said: Looked at the article and footnotes and not seeing this. Please explain or quote. My post has been referring the pedigree diagram (duplicated in my post) which the church has brilliantly used to illistrate the once limitation on the science. This lineage void can now be accessed. 5 hours ago, Calm said: 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? I feel like I am repeating myself, see my earlier post on AIMs 5 hours ago, Calm said: 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? No this is not what I am suggesting. However population geneticist now have the ability to examine much smaller trace markers than even a few years ago, yes even 1 marker in 100,000 can be examined. But we hold maybe 15 million from which AIMs can be selected and studied. Each a unique roadmap of our origins. With literally so precise of an ability to detect even these small markers, geneticists can literally refine ancestry to within miles of their origins. Think of it as a road map with pit stops along the way. With each stop we collect a souvenir which we then pass on to the next generation as the journey continues. Genesis can examine each of the souvenirs collected at each pit stop and determine the actual road that our ancestors traveled to arrive at their current destination. 5 hours ago, Calm said: 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. My apologies, I'm literally throwing this post up out of my respect for you. But its a fine day and I'm going up skiing. Yes i live in Utah. I'll try to address your questions more fully later.
Kevin Christensen Posted January 15, 2020 Posted January 15, 2020 14 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: The BoM doesn't give evidence for these other groups of people, other than the Mulekites or the Jaredites, there are no other people that the BoM identifies. However, the apologists like to blend what the BoM says, with what science tells us. Essentially, since we know people existed all over the American continents, and we also know that these people clearly didn't come from the middle east, they try to find creative ways to read the BoM text to mean something different than how it has been read traditionally. I'm not saying this is a bad thing necessarily, all religions do this with their sacred texts, they essentially reinterpret the texts over time and relative to their culture. The part that bothers me is when people point out that this new reading runs counter to how earlier church leaders interpreted the text, then some apologists try to dismiss that evidence or make excuses for the earlier church leaders statements. This is dishonest from my perspective. Be open and honest about the history, the evolution of thought, the differing opinions that exist throughout time. People have different perspectives, and thats ok. Quit trying to reconcile all the disparate perspectives into one happy and harmonious whole. Church leaders disagree with each other???? Yes, they do. Like I just said: 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. Notice that Hope_for_Things does not bother to deal with the detailed evidence and readings that Roper, Sorenson, Gardner and even yours truly provided in published essays, but settles for insinuating that we don't deal with statements from LDS leaders on the topic. And Hope_for_Things insinuates that going against LDS traditions is somehow scandalous because LDS are supposed to believe that what we have came in one complete, instantly and fully comprehended lump, that LDS leaders had no prior cultural understandings that affected how they understood and read, that they could not err, that they did not need to seek wisdom because it must have all been handed to them, and that they had nothing more to learn. Roper and Sorenson quote and explore the traditional authorities and readings at length (Roper has on essay on that very topic, and Sorenson's Sourcebook quotes the key sources over time), showing that several spoke of "others" around long before NIbley and Sorenson and Gardner did. They document the different opinions over time, and show very clearly which thinkers deal with Book of Mormon texts relative to the state of archeology and such at any given time, and which simply passed on traditional thought and authority without exploring either texts in detail, or available evidence. If you making charges of dishonesty, please provide specific sources rather than vague and unsupported generalizations that have the effect of "poisoning the well", an all too rhetorical ploy for avoiding effort and evidence. And it happens that the history of opinion is quite different than the history those who carefully read the text. Those who closely read the text, and who considered that different assumptions can contribute to different readings actually provide the most important evidence that ought to be discussed. And close reading is what droves the changing opinions. Mormon and Moroni and Alma and Nephi ought to count as authorities whose eye witness potential ought to count more than whose who never support their opinions from the key texts, or who provide ways to reconcile the text and the archeological knowledge available at any given time. And as the recent LiDar survey demonstrates (Disney Plus lists the National Geographic Special), the past is only a prelude. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA 1
Kevin Christensen Posted January 15, 2020 Posted January 15, 2020 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: Others were already where? Is there any indication of intermixing mentioned in the BoM? If so, how soon after their arrival? Are we saying that Jacob used what he etched on plates to teach the people around him? It gets confusing when you think the BoM was written for our day. Is their even reason to think that the copying of Isaiah was meant for them? After reading that, I think they are better off arguing that old point that the Lamanites must have been magically changed by God genetically and that's why we can't detect any relevant DNA. I found this a little amusing: Somehow in their view its likely that Lehi and his sons were in existence all because there is nothing in the genetic studies to indicate their ever were Lehi and his sons in existence. I think that's called reading into the text something you want or really wish is there. Yes. Others were there from the start. Yes, there are indications. I provided links to Roper and Gardner and my own. Smac linked Sorenson. Seek and ye shall find. Read the essays. I say again. Read. Seek and ye shall find. And I don't need to rely on "magic". Actual science and scholarship is much more helpful and persusasive. Quote According to John M. Butler, a forensic DNA scientist, “the majority of the people living today in Iceland had ancestors living only 150 years ago that could not be detected based on the [patrilineal and matrilineal] DNA … yet the genealogical records exist showing that these people lived and were real ancestors.”14 I have Icelandic ancestry, by the way. Ideologically dismiss, and ye shall not experience what Alma 32 calls expansion and enlightenment of the mind. If the new wine stresses your preconceptions, try adjusting your preconceptions so you can experience the new wine. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA 1
hope_for_things Posted January 15, 2020 Posted January 15, 2020 51 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Yep. I think the one possible story of Sherem actually argues against their point. Somehow the Nephites and Lamanites encountered tons of people already here and were intermixing with them for a few decades (which would mean the genetic Nephites and the Lamanites were very few among very many) and then one guy came teaching this group of people spread out in different settlements, apparently, and they all were believers in the religion of the Nephites. It doesn't really make sense. They are much better off ignoring the elements of the text and just hoping and pretending it really happened. Of course in the end, they are better off seeing the whole story as mythical scripture. All scripture is mythical from my perspective. There certainly are historical events that intersect at various different points and degrees with the narratives, and its interesting to try and trace back the historical accuracy of the narratives, but at the end of the day religion is not an exercise in history telling.
Calm Posted January 15, 2020 Posted January 15, 2020 (edited) 34 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said: Actual science and scholarship is much more helpful and persusasive. FairDinkum is pointing out the science has changed in the past 10 years. My understanding is it has not changed as much as he thinks it has even if the upper limit has moved substantially to now 1 part in 100,000 for autosomal DNA, thus allowing filling in many of the gaps left by tests that were previously just mtdna or y-DNA, but not so much as to remove significant dropping out of DNA after 10 or 15 generations where before it was 5 to 7 generations ancestors were missed. Edited January 15, 2020 by Calm
rockpond Posted January 15, 2020 Posted January 15, 2020 10 hours ago, InCognitus said: 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. 1 Nephi 1:4 -- "For it came to pass in the commencement of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah, (my father, Lehi, having dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days); and in that same year there came many prophets, prophesying unto the people that they must repent, or the great city Jerusalem must be destroyed." (This describes the Lehites from which we get Nephites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites.) Omni 1:15 -- "Behold, it came to pass that Mosiah discovered that the people of Zarahemla came out from Jerusalem at the time that Zedekiah, king of Judah, was carried away captive into Babylon." (Mulekites) 10 hours ago, InCognitus said: 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. The text identifies the Lamanites as descendants of Lehi. It's going outside of the text to make claims beyond that. 10 hours ago, InCognitus said: But the text does give us numerous clues that intermingling with outside people actually happened, particularly with the Lamanites. Certain assumptions are required to arrive at such conclusions. Those assumptions may be warranted but they are still outside the text. 10 hours ago, InCognitus said: 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. In Section 57 the Lord revealed: "Wherefore, it is wisdom that the land should be purchased by the saints, and also every tract lying westward, even unto the line running directly between Jew and Gentile". The footnote states: “Jew” here refers to the Lamanites, and “Gentile” to the white settlers. Thus Native Americans were being identified as Lamanites and of Jewish ancestry. The Lord identified Native Americans as Jews. 1
hope_for_things Posted January 15, 2020 Posted January 15, 2020 41 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said: 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. Personally, I agree with you that it doesn't matter to me what church leaders say or believe about the subject, whether they are accurate or not is what matters to me. The big problem in Mormonism with this is that we have a strong culture of deference to authority. People are not encouraged to think for themselves, to critically analyze and weigh the statements of leaders. There is a strong foundation of discouragement for stepping out of line and conformity and obedience are promoted as virtues while differentiation is discouraged, shamed and at times punished and excommunicated. 50 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said: Notice that Hope_for_Things does not bother to deal with the detailed evidence and readings that Roper, Sorenson, Gardner and even yours truly provided in published essays, but settles for insinuating that we don't deal with statements from LDS leaders on the topic. And Hope_for_Things insinuates that going against LDS traditions is somehow scandalous because LDS are supposed to believe that what we have came in one complete, instantly and fully comprehended lump, that LDS leaders had no prior cultural understandings that affected how they understood and read, that they could not err, that they did not need to seek wisdom because it must have all been handed to them, and that they had nothing more to learn. Roper and Sorenson quote and explore the traditional authorities and readings at length (Roper has on essay on that very topic, and Sorenson's Sourcebook quotes the key sources over time), showing that several spoke of "others" around long before NIbley and Sorenson and Gardner did. They document the different opinions over time, and show very clearly which thinkers deal with Book of Mormon texts relative to the state of archeology and such at any given time, and which simply passed on traditional thought and authority without exploring either texts in detail, or available evidence. If you making charges of dishonesty, please provide specific sources rather than vague and unsupported generalizations that have the effect of "poisoning the well", an all too rhetorical ploy for avoiding effort and evidence. And it happens that the history of opinion is quite different than the history those who carefully read the text. Those who closely read the text, and who considered that different assumptions can contribute to different readings actually provide the most important evidence that ought to be discussed. And close reading is what droves the changing opinions. Mormon and Moroni and Alma and Nephi ought to count as authorities whose eye witness potential ought to count more than whose who never support their opinions from the key texts, or who provide ways to reconcile the text and the archeological knowledge available at any given time. And as the recent LiDar survey demonstrates (Disney Plus lists the National Geographic Special), the past is only a prelude. Why the “notice that “Hope_for_things” way of responding to me. We’ve interacted with you many times over the years and always tried to be respectful. Anyway, to your points, I wasn’t ever attempting a formal response to all the apologetics on this topic over the years, did you get the impression somehow in my short comment that I was attempting such a detailed response? My insinuation is not that going against LDS traditions is scandalous, quite the contrary, I’m saying that changing opinions and evolving traditions are the norm for all religions, and shouldn’t be looked at as scandalous, but should be expected as part of the normal human endeavor. It’s the dominant culture in the church that sees an evolution of thought and disagreement of authoritative statements as scandalous. So on this point about cultural influence and development of learning over time, I think we actually agree about the mechanisms at play. Where we might disagree would be around the definition of revelation and the importance of religious authority. To your dishonesty question, I’m speaking about what I see as clearly moving the goal posts when it comes to interpreting what was taught as the dominant narrative in the church with respect to the native Americans and their origins. To cherry pick quotes that show different perspectives in the past and overstate these quotes as evidence that the dominant narrative didn’t exist, strikes me as dishonest and gaslighting, and I take issue with it. Lastly, I agree with you about closely reading the text and the value we can get from that approach and it’s the approach I wholeheartedly endorse. I also agree with you about the assumptions we bring to the text and how that colors our perspective. I also try to maintain a healthy level of humility when it comes to my interpretations of the text, especially when it comes to claiming that my interpretation is the “correct” one while other interpretations are clearly flawed. For example, when it comes to the BoM, I don’t believe in its historicity, so I don’t expect that an interpretation of the text will tell me anything about ancient Americans, rather it tells me what Joseph Smith’s perspective was filtered through his 19th century culture.
stemelbow Posted January 15, 2020 Posted January 15, 2020 1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said: Yes. Others were there from the start. Yes, there are indications. I provided links to Roper and Gardner and my own. Smac linked Sorenson. Seek and ye shall find. Read the essays. I say again. Read. Seek and ye shall find. And I don't need to rely on "magic". Actual science and scholarship is much more helpful and persusasive. I have Icelandic ancestry, by the way. Ideologically dismiss, and ye shall not experience what Alma 32 calls expansion and enlightenment of the mind. If the new wine stresses your preconceptions, try adjusting your preconceptions so you can experience the new wine. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Ive enjoyed the findings from the Iceland study. I dont' know if anything has been done since, but it's interesting.
smac97 Posted January 15, 2020 Author Posted January 15, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, stemelbow said: I think there are some assumptions to make in order to see Sherem as one who was not a product of those who left Jerusalem. Yes, but I think those assumptions are more substantiated than assumptions made in order to suggest that The Book of Mormon posits a people-free continent prior to Lehi's arrival. Quote Saying he came among the Nephites could mean he came from outside the group but it could also mean he went from group to group among the Nephites. Ten or so years after their arrival the Nephites had split into so many different groups that they didn't know each other any more (as evidenced by Sherem not having previously met Jacob)? That seems pretty unlikely. From Roper's article (emphasis added): Quote {Sorenson} contended that many elements found in the Book of Mormon text can best be accounted for under the assumption that Nephites and Lamanites included other people in addition to those descended from the original founding colony. For example, Lehi’s son Jacob’s condemnation of the Nephites having “‘many wives and concubines’…seems to call for a larger population of females,” which could not have been the case with Lehi’s party just one or two generations after their arrival. Male casualties in battles involving such tiny numbers could hardly have been very many. This would suggest the incorporation of “‘other’ people.”50 The activities and words of Sherem also support this view. Jacob says that “there came a man among the people of Nephi, whose name was Sherem” (Jacob 7:1). In his conversation with Jacob, Sherem indicates that he had “sought much opportunity that I might speak unto you; for I have heard and also know that thou goest about much, preaching that which ye call the gospel, or the doctrine of Christ” (Jacob 7:6). Sorenson estimated that the population of actual descendants of the Nephite colony “could not have exceeded fifty by that time,” hardly “enough to populate one modest-sized village. …Jacob, as head priest and religious teacher, would routinely have been around the Nephite temple in the cultural center at least on all holy days (see Jacob 2:2). How then could Sherem never have seen him, and why would he have had to seek ‘much opportunity’ to speak to him in such a tiny settlement? And where would Jacob have had to go on the preaching travels Sherem refers to, if only such a tiny group were involved? Moreover, from where was it that Sherem ‘came…among the people of Nephi’ (Jacob 7:1)”51 Sorenson also noted references to wars, flocks, and domesticated corn as suggesting the presence of other people.52 Even more recently, Brant Gardner has marshaled additional evidence suggesting that the Nephites were a minority people in the midst of many other Mesoamerican groups with whom they interacted.53 These seem like fair questions. Moreover, what do you make of Jacob 7:4, in which Jacob notes that Sherem "had a perfect knowledge of the language of the people"? John Tvedtnes argues that this verse only makes sense if Sherem "were not a Nephite" (although Matthew Bowen notes the possibility of this suggesting he was a son or near descendant of Zoram (see here)). Quote I also wonder what sciptures it is said he believed. If he came from outside to the Nephites and told them they were wrong, why would he believe their scriptures? That'd be odd. Isn't this board pretty good evidence of people being able to read the same text and come away with disparate interpretations of it? Quote If the Nephites and Lamanites were a small population getting assimilated into a large one, relatively speaking, then how did the story come out as the Lehites were leaders? It's as if thousands of people in an already established civilization just sat back and let a few dirty rascals boss them around, teach them their religion, as they sat back and let them lead. Sorenson posits that the Sherem story took place ten or so years after Lehi's arrival, such that the group numbered perhaps fifty. How likely is it that Sherem had not, in all those ten years, never encountered Jacob? And if assimilation into the larger culture had started by this point, it was likely in its nascent stages. Jacob 7:6 has Sherem noting that he knew that Jacob "goest about much, preaching that which ye call the gospel." Where was it that Jacob was "go{ing} about much"? That sounds quite a bit like missionary work. Quote By the time the Sherem story hits, somehow the groups (the Nephites and the Lamanites) were large enough to be civilizations of sorts, with built up settlements. I'm not sure about that. Again, from Roper's article (emphases added): Quote Jacob says that “there came a man among the people of Nephi, whose name was Sherem” (Jacob 7:1). In his conversation with Jacob, Sherem indicates that he had “sought much opportunity that I might speak unto you; for I have heard and also know that thou goest about much, preaching that which ye call the gospel, or the doctrine of Christ” (Jacob 7:6). Sorenson estimated that the population of actual descendants of the Nephite colony “could not have exceeded fifty by that time,” hardly “enough to populate one modest-sized village. …Jacob, as head priest and religious teacher, would routinely have been around the Nephite temple in the cultural center at least on all holy days (see Jacob 2:2). How then could Sherem never have seen him, and why would he have had to seek ‘much opportunity’ to speak to him in such a tiny settlement? And where would Jacob have had to go on the preaching travels Sherem refers to, if only such a tiny group were involved? Again, these are fair questions. Quote The time estimates are interesting. Jacob had to have been born sometimes before 570 BC because that is when Lehi died. And since Jacob was born while they were in the wilderness it couldn't have been much after say 590 BC. Somehow it's estimated that Sherem's time was over 140 years after Jacob was born. I'm not sure what you are saying here. If Lehi left Jerusalem around 600 B.C. (1 Nephi 1), Jacob would have been born between then and 592 B.C. He was Lehi's "firstborn in the wilderness" (2 Nephi 2:2), and Lehi was in the wilderness for eight years (1 Nephi 17:4). So let's split the difference and suggest, arguendo, that Jacob was born in 596 B.C. The Church's estimate of Sherem's interaction with Jacob puts it at 544 B.C. or so. That would make Jacob about 52 years old at the time, not "over 140." Quote It's tough to estimate the time that has passed, but that's of course an absurdity. But it does speak to the problematic story found early in the BoM, I think. Perhaps your math is off? Or am I missing something? Quote I certainly don't see a very good argument to be made that Sherem was definitely from a civilization that was in the land before Lehi and company arrived. I'm not sure anyone is saying that Sherem was definitely an outsider. As noted above, Matthew Bowen has apparently argued that he arrived with Lehi (but was a descendant of Zoram, and hence a kinda-sorta "outsider," but not in the context we are discussing). However, Roper and Sorenson and Gardner and others have made a pretty solid argument that Sherem could be "from a civilization that was in the land before Lehi and company arrived." Quote I mean its possible, but it's really just an assumption. Not an assumption. A conclusion. Quote Quote Quote How and when could their genetic traces been lost, swallowed up by the others or washed out? Isn't this question addressed in the Church's essay and the BOMC article? Not specifically. Just generally. I'm not sure I understand the distinction in this context. After all, the topic at hand is whether today's population genetics can necessarily and definitively preclude the possibility that thirty or so ancient Israelites migrating to the Americas 2,600 years ago. It seems hard to get down to "specifics" about something like that. Quote Does the text indicate anything that their genetics would be washed out? The text of what? Thanks, -Smac Edited January 15, 2020 by smac97
webbles Posted January 15, 2020 Posted January 15, 2020 12 hours ago, rockpond said: 12 hours 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. I know the conversation has gone by but I wanted to respond to this. When I said "point to a single verse", that meant I couldn't just pull up one verse to show it. But I could point to a lot of verses that indicate that there were "others". It is kind of like dating "Pride and Prejudice". "Pride and Prejudice" doesn't have a date in it so you can't point to a single statement or paragraph and say when it might have happened. But using different parts of the book (wars, places, moneys, etc), you can give it a pretty narrow date range. Similarly with the Book of Mormon. Using different parts of the Book of Mormon and considering who wrote it and why they are writing it, I can see "others" in it. 2
rockpond Posted January 15, 2020 Posted January 15, 2020 19 minutes ago, webbles said: I know the conversation has gone by but I wanted to respond to this. When I said "point to a single verse", that meant I couldn't just pull up one verse to show it. But I could point to a lot of verses that indicate that there were "others". It is kind of like dating "Pride and Prejudice". "Pride and Prejudice" doesn't have a date in it so you can't point to a single statement or paragraph and say when it might have happened. But using different parts of the book (wars, places, moneys, etc), you can give it a pretty narrow date range. Similarly with the Book of Mormon. Using different parts of the Book of Mormon and considering who wrote it and why they are writing it, I can see "others" in it. Interesting example... If you were to use parts of the book Price and Prejudice to determine when it took place, you would be making an inference - and you would be wrong. Because, as we know, the events specific to the characters of Pride and Prejudice never actually took place. It's fiction. If you use various statements in the Book of Mormon to make an assumption that other unnamed peoples were around, you are also making an inference since the text doesn't explicitly state such. Though, in this case, you could be correct. In this dispensation, the Lord referred to the Native Americans as Jewish (D&C 57). Does this mean that if other peoples were intermingling with Lehite/Mulekite descendants that they were also led to America from Israel?
InCognitus Posted January 15, 2020 Posted January 15, 2020 2 hours ago, rockpond said: 12 hours ago, InCognitus said: 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. 1 Nephi 1:4 -- "For it came to pass in the commencement of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah, (my father, Lehi, having dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days); and in that same year there came many prophets, prophesying unto the people that they must repent, or the great city Jerusalem must be destroyed." (This describes the Lehites from which we get Nephites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites.) Omni 1:15 -- "Behold, it came to pass that Mosiah discovered that the people of Zarahemla came out from Jerusalem at the time that Zedekiah, king of Judah, was carried away captive into Babylon." (Mulekites) These only show that certain groups originated from Jerusalem and doesn't address my question. The book goes on to describe changes between the groups, and vast increases of population that can only be explained by encounters with others already in the land. The Lamanites were "exceedingly more numerous than...the Nephites" (Jarom 1:6), and were many times described as outnumbering the Nephites at least two to one (Mosiah 20:11, Mosiah 22:2, Mosiah 25:3, Alma 43:51, Helaman 4:19, and Helaman 4:25). At one point, the Lamanites (combined with the Amlicites) were described as being "as numerous almost, as it were, as the sands of the sea" (Alma 2:27). How is that possible unless they encountered others in the land? Smac and Kevin have brought up the language issue in the story of Sherem, which is also an indication that they were influenced by outsiders. In addition to that example, it was only a few hundred years into the Book of Mormon that we find some Lamanites needing to be taught "the language of Nephi": "And he appointed teachers of the brethren of Amulon in every land which was possessed by his people; and thus the language of Nephi began to be taught among all the people of the Lamanites." (Mosiah 24:4) Either the language of these offshoot groups (like the Lamanites) degenerated from the language of Lehi into other dialects, or the descendants of Laman and Lemuel were influenced by other groups of people having different languages. 1 hour ago, rockpond said: The text identifies the Lamanites as descendants of Lehi. It's going outside of the text to make claims beyond that. The text identifies Lamanites as all kinds of different composites of people having nothing to do with their genetic origins. In Jacob 1:13-14, Jacob says, "I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites". So, any other group of people who opposed the Nephites were called Lamanites, whether they were direct descendants of Lehi or not. This idea is carried throughout the Book of Mormon, and many groups of people flip-flop, becoming Nephites then Lamanites and vice versa depending upon their political and/or religious alignment at the time and regardless of their lineage. The influence of other bloodlines upon the descendants of the people of Lehi becomes apparent when Mormon (the editor), in one of his inserted editorial comments, boasts, "I am Mormon, and a pure descendant of Lehi" (3 Nephi 5:20). Here, we are given to understand that being a direct descendant of Lehi was really something unique and special. 2 hours ago, rockpond said: Certain assumptions are required to arrive at such conclusions. Those assumptions may be warranted but they are still outside the text. On the contrary, all of these outside influences are observable within the text. 2 hours ago, rockpond said: In Section 57 the Lord revealed: "Wherefore, it is wisdom that the land should be purchased by the saints, and also every tract lying westward, even unto the line running directly between Jew and Gentile". The footnote states: “Jew” here refers to the Lamanites, and “Gentile” to the white settlers. Thus Native Americans were being identified as Lamanites and of Jewish ancestry. The Lord identified Native Americans as Jews. They are identified as such because of the "remnant" of the seed that was among them, as I stated previously: "And again, I command thee that thou shalt not covet thine own property, but impart it freely to the printing of the Book of Mormon, which contains the truth and the word of God— Which is my word to the Gentile, that soon it may go to the Jew, of whom the Lamanites are a remnant, that they may believe the gospel, and look not for a Messiah to come who has already come." (Doctrine and Covenants 19:26–27) 2
webbles Posted January 15, 2020 Posted January 15, 2020 47 minutes ago, rockpond said: Interesting example... If you were to use parts of the book Price and Prejudice to determine when it took place, you would be making an inference - and you would be wrong. Because, as we know, the events specific to the characters of Pride and Prejudice never actually took place. It's fiction. If you use various statements in the Book of Mormon to make an assumption that other unnamed peoples were around, you are also making an inference since the text doesn't explicitly state such. Though, in this case, you could be correct. Yeah, Pride and Prejudice is fictional but it is a novel that I know enough of to come up with the analogy. And yes, it is an inference. It is also an inference to say that all the Book of Mormon people are Lehites, Mulekites, or Jaredites because there isn't anything that explicitly states that those are the only three groups. 52 minutes ago, rockpond said: In this dispensation, the Lord referred to the Native Americans as Jewish (D&C 57). Does this mean that if other peoples were intermingling with Lehite/Mulekite descendants that they were also led to America from Israel? Since you can be a Jew without being a literal descendant of Israel, that verse doesn't tell us anything about lineage or geographical location. Considering that the Book of Mormon states that all were converted after the coming of Christ (4 Nephi 1:2), I don't see a problem with calling them Jews. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted January 15, 2020 Posted January 15, 2020 On 1/14/2020 at 12:08 PM, Thinking said: ............................ it wasn't until after the release of Losing a Lost Tribe that principal was changed to among in the Book of Mormon introduction. The guy who put it in the non-canonical introduction was not an anthropologist and so stubbed his toe. After his death someone else came along and made the change you cite. These are matters of well-intentioned ornamentation, not substance. Why are you concentrating on fluff, instead of substance? 1
Robert F. Smith Posted January 15, 2020 Posted January 15, 2020 (edited) 19 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said: ....................... yes I do understand the difference between modern and ancient DNA. .....................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. ...............From YOUR markers a population geneticist can determine the various ancient populations that ............ 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..................................... 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................................... Funny thing: As I read your words, I hear them in my mind with an Aussie accent. That rarely happens. 😎 Aside from that, however, I see that you still have not bothered to answer my initial questions: Quote You falsely stated that "Had there been any pre Columbian middle eastern DNA this study would have unwittingly found it." This assumes that such DNA would exist among modern Amerinds, and that all tribes in the Americas have been adequately sampled (scientific sampling applied). i countered that we have plenty of cases of DNA disappearing through time, and that it is much more effective to sample actual skeletal remains (ancientDNA). Are you in denial of these simple forensic DNA observations? Are you defending Southerton's mistaken assumptions? * * * We have plenty of evidence of disappearance of DNA from populations, which is why we need actual skeletal remains to test. As I have already pointed out: Quote ................. we already know that Southerton is wrong to assume that all Amerind DNA comes from only one Asian source. For example, haplotype C3* Y chromosomes were present in the “First American” ancestral population, and have been lost by genetic drift from most modern populations except the Ecuadorians. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4312352/ . Indeed, Australo-Melanesian skeletal remains from Sumidouro Cave, Lagoa Santa, central Brazil, have no morphological affinities with present-day Native Americans or East Asians. These results agree with other studies and suggest that the skeletons may derive from a wave of migrants that entered the New World before the characteristic 'Mongoloid' morphology spread throughout East Asia. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.666.5232&rep=rep1&type=pdf , and https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242242229_Early_Holocene_human_skeletal_remains_from_Cerca_Grande_Lagoa_Santa_Central_Brazil_and_the_origins_of_the_first_Americans . Dr. Reich (Harvard) and his colleagues found that some living people in the Amazon carry some DNA that is most similar to that of people who live today in Australia and New Guinea. If everything is as tight and tidy as Southerton claims, how can this be? Edited January 15, 2020 by Robert F. Smith 1
Robert F. Smith Posted January 15, 2020 Posted January 15, 2020 5 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said: 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. 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................................ Yes, and don't let us forget about the Jaredites, who still existed in full force when Lehi & Company arrived.
Recommended Posts