Simon Southerton's New Book

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

These only show that certain groups originated from Jerusalem and doesn't address my question.

And those are the only groups identified as existing within the text of the Book of Mormon

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

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.  

Not "only"... that is one explanation, and a good one, but it is an assumption being made that does not have specific textual support.

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

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?

Perhaps there were far more women in the Lamanite group that split off early in the account.

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

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.

Yes, perhaps it degenerated from the language of Lehi since they may not have been keeping any written records among the Lamanites

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

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.

Yes, the identification as Nephites and Lamanites becomes a matter of belief.  But this is not grounds to conclude that other people must have intermingled.

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

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. 

A statement which could have a couple different meanings.

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

On the contrary, all of these outside influences are observable within the text.

With lots of assumptions.

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

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) 

Yes, Lamanites are a remnant of the Jews.  This is consistent with other revealed statements from the Lord in D&C in which He identifies Native Americans as Jews and Lamanites.  Never does He state that Native Americans are a mix of most other people with a few Jewish descendants.

[Kenngo1969]

6 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.

Quoted for truth (emphasis mine).

[Kenngo1969]

5 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Hmm. May I intervene? Somehow, I think I can make Kengo's point better. 

I'm perfectly capable of speaking for myself if and when I choose to do so.  With all due respect, I need neither you nor anyone else to speak for me.  Thanks.  (However, see my quotation from Kevin Christensen, above.) 

Edited January 15, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[Robert F. Smith]

48 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And those are the only groups identified as existing within the text of the Book of Mormon...................................

We still have the Jaredite problem, and that of the people of Zarahemla, not all of whom need have come from Jerusalem -- we do not know who composed the crew of the boat accompanying young Mulek, and they may have been Phoenicians, Egyptians, etc.

[rockpond]

42 minutes ago, webbles said:

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.

Correct.  But the text only speaks of those groups.  That was the question I was answering:  How does the Book of Mormon, on its own, define Lamanite.

42 minutes ago, webbles said:

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.

But the coming of Christ was 1800 years prior and, per the Book of Mormon, those who would have survived to become the modern day Native Americans are those who rejected the gospel and killed the believers.  I don't see how their conversion would be grounds for the Lord referring to them as Jews since there is no evidence that they were converted.  In fact, the instruction was to go introduce them to the gospel.  So, I don't think that explanation makes sense.  The better explanation seems that the Lord would have been referring to them as Jews because they were descendants of Jewish people that He sent to the Americas.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We still have the Jaredite problem, and that of the people of Zarahemla, not all of whom need have come from Jerusalem -- we do not know who composed the crew of the boat accompanying young Mulek, and they may have been Phoenicians, Egyptians, etc.

How is that a problem?  The Jaredites spent the last four years of their civilizations existence gathering everyone men, women, children together for the great and final battle.  Ether 15 tells us that all went into battle and all died except for Ether who recorded everything but he is effectively out of the picture by the time the Lehites arrive, right?

How all the children fought and died?  I don't know.  I suppose there's one group of potential others if we want to make some assumptions about them.

[Thinking]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Why are you concentrating on fluff, instead of substance?

It may be considered fluff now, but it used to be substance.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

How is that a problem?  The Jaredites spent the last four years of their civilizations existence gathering everyone men, women, children together for the great and final battle.  Ether 15 tells us that all went into battle and all died except for Ether who recorded everything but he is effectively out of the picture by the time the Lehites arrive, right?

How all the children fought and died?  I don't know.  I suppose there's one group of potential others if we want to make some assumptions about them.

All such accounts of extinction worldwide are hyperbole, and we actually have good evidence of Jaredite cultural survival, e.g., the Jaredite onomasticon survives into Zarahemla and Nephite times.  We also have the mixed source people of Zarahemla.

See my short essay on "Reuse of Jaredite Names Among the Mulekites, Lamanites and Nephites," online at https://onoma.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Reuse_of_Jaredite_Names_Among_the_Mulekites,_Lamanites_and_Nephites

Edited January 16, 2020 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

33 minutes ago, Thinking said:

It may be considered fluff now, but it used to be substance.

Yeh, but to whom?  Who is always attracted to fluff?  Silly billies?  Always has been. 

[Fair Dinkum]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

I've had some time to rethink some of my positions and think I had better take a step back from some of my assertions. I think we've been comparing apples and oranges.  I didn't realize that most of the posters here believe that the Nephites were a small party who merged with the massive native populations. (I don't see this in the book but understand the apologetic need to make this leap)

 I for example coming from English forefathers and at least according to Family search.org am related to King Edward I of England.  But the chance that I have directly inherited any of his 13th century DNA is probably quite remote.  But there is zero doubt that my ancestry is British and my DNA supports this reality. After 10 generations the chance of inheriting ancient ancestors DNA drops to around 10%.   My earlier assertions were based on a much broader interpretation of Lehite involvement in ancient American populations.  If as many here claim, Lehi and those who traveled with him, made an extremely small genetic contribution then it is fair to say that there would be little chance of any of that DNA being measurable, not impossible but very unlikely. It would be as if the people of Lehi were a droplet of iodine dropped into the pacific ocean.  It would be nearly impossible to detect that iodine especially after years of defusement.

This said, this requires, in my humble opinion the complete reinterpretation of what the Book of Mormon claims to be.  Instead of the book being a record of 2 great nations of people, it must be reinterpreted as the story of a small inconsequential party who left no evidence of its existence which is a far cry from what the book claims to be. 

I am familiar with alternative theories but frankly don't find them very believable or credible. For me the most faithful and sensible reading of the book is as a spiritual work of fiction.  Accepting the book as a work of fiction doesn't hurt my brain as much as trying to force the other theories into believably. And I'm comfortable with the book being a work of fiction.

Edited January 16, 2020 by Fair Dinkum

[Hamba Tuhan]

38 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

If as many here claim, Lehi and those who traveled with him, made an extremely small genetic contribution then it is fair to say that there would be little chance of any of that DNA being measurable, not impossible but very unlikely. It would be as if the people of Lehi were a droplet of iodine dropped into the pacific ocean.  It would be nearly impossible to detect that iodine especially after years of defusement.

Thank you for finally getting the point!

My academic training is in history. I spent my masters and PhD research reading historical documents and piecing together bigger pictures from fragmentary evidence. (Seldom do historical texts write out all the details one would wish!)* Latter-day Saint scholars (and others) who approached the Book of Mormon this way reached the conclusion that Lehi's descendants were a small group in a vast sea of others many, many decades before Dr Southerton started tilting at this particular windmill.

I'm glad you now understand why his 'research' doesn't faze us at all. He's trying to argue from the science that we shouldn't believe something we already don't believe based on close, critical readings of the text itself. In fact, it seems to me that he rather desperately needs his readers to accept his caricature of Latter-day Saint beliefs specifically so that he has something he can attack. The chronology on this is clear and demonstrates that faithful Book of Mormon scholars and serious readers of all stripes got there before he did.

-----

* For example, my PhD thesis, which rests upon c. 4,000 pages of primary source materials, argues that the Europeans who created those documents never understood the reality they were encountering and therefore produced accounts which do not accurately portray the situation at all. They were, essentially, blinded by a shared narrative that caused them to misreport and in many cases completely overlook what was really going on in the societies they lived amongst. At the same time, the Indigenous populations still managed to leave traces in these texts that can be identified and which allow a tentative reconstruction that is far more accurate and inclusive. Archaeology, historical linguistics, anthropology and other disciplines have helped force us to read these texts against the grain, but to be honest, this is just what good scholars do as a rule -- despite the fact that some in this thread, yourself included, feel the need to dismiss this approach as 'apologetic', even reactionary, in nature.

Edited January 16, 2020 by Hamba Tuhan

[rockpond]

53 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

All such accounts of extinction worldwide are hyperbole, and we actually have good evidence of Jaredite cultural survival, e.g., the Jaredite onomasticon survives into Zarahemla and Nephite times.  We also have the mixed source people of Zarahemla.

See my short essay on "Reuse of Jaredite Names Among the Mulekites, Lamanites and Nephites," online at https://onoma.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Reuse_of_Jaredite_Names_Among_the_Mulekites,_Lamanites_and_Nephites

So do we also consider it hyperbole when the Lord referred to the Native American populations in 1800’s frontier America as Jews and Lamanites?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

This said, this requires, in my humble opinion the complete reinterpretation of what the Book of Mormon claims to be.  Instead of the book being a record of 2 great nations of people, it must be reinterpreted as the story of a small inconsequential party who left no evidence of its existence which is a far cry from what the book claims to be. 

I am not certain it has to be almost all or almost nothing.  A small party probably could have a small genetic influence but higher political influence if intermarriage took place relatively thoroughly for most while the dominant Nephite political group married more within its own clan but was then wiped out in the political turmoil or if their intermarriage was with high status individuals.

Edited January 16, 2020 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

So do we also consider it hyperbole when the Lord referred to the Native American populations in 1800’s frontier America as Jews and Lamanites?

You would probably want to cite and quote the original forms of all such statements, which are always mediated by flawed humans.  Once you examine all Scripture (assuming you are an assiduous student of the Bible), the results of close analysis of actual Scriptural claims in the name of the Lord take on several noteworthy characteristics:  They are very diverse, shocking, and inconsistent across the board, requiring careful exegesis.  Most readers don't even know that pious scribes have altered many texts (tikune sopherim).

Hyperbole is entirely normal in the Bible, as well as in ancient Near Eastern accounts generally.  Take the account of Egyptian King Merneptah, for example, in his foray into Syro-Palestine in about 1208 BC.  He says that he completely destroyed several cities, and then (in line 27 of his famous stele) he claims to have completely destroyed the Israelites.  I guess he didn't quite do the job . . .

[rockpond]

22 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You would probably want to cite and quote the original forms of all such statements, which are always mediated by flawed humans.  Once you examine all Scripture (assuming you are an assiduous student of the Bible), the results of close analysis of actual Scriptural claims in the name of the Lord take on several noteworthy characteristics:  They are very diverse, shocking, and inconsistent across the board, requiring careful exegesis.  Most readers don't even know that pious scribes have altered many texts (tikune sopherim).

Hyperbole is entirely normal in the Bible, as well as in ancient Near Eastern accounts generally.  Take the account of Egyptian King Merneptah, for example, in his foray into Syro-Palestine in about 1208 BC.  He says that he completely destroyed several cities, and then (in line 27 of his famous stele) he claims to have completely destroyed the Israelites.  I guess he didn't quite do the job . . .

Agreed, but my question was whether the Lord’s statement to Joseph Smith (no pious scribe involved), that the Native Americans were Lamanites and Jews, was hyperbole?

Or, is it your assertion that Joseph was not able to accurately dictate/transcribe what the Lord was telling him?

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I've had some time to rethink some of my positions and think I had better take a step back from some of my assertions. I think we've been comparing apples and oranges.  I didn't realize that most of the posters here believe that the Nephites were a small party who merged with the massive native populations. (I don't see this in the book but understand the apologetic need to make this leap)

I don't see it either, and I see no "apologetic need" to make such an assumption.  We should be solely and only interested in what makes scholarly sense.

4 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

.......................   My earlier assertions were based on a much broader interpretation of Lehite involvement in ancient American populations.  If as many here claim, Lehi and those who traveled with him, made an extremely small genetic contribution then it is fair to say that there would be little chance of any of that DNA being measurable, not impossible but very unlikely. It would be as if the people of Lehi were a droplet of iodine dropped into the pacific ocean.  It would be nearly impossible to detect that iodine especially after years of defusement.

This is what Southerton admitted years ago on the Signature Books website, but later denied.  Bear in mind that most of the Bible concerns itself with Classical Israel occupying a very small territory in which most of the action takes place.  Still a very small area even today.

4 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

This said, this requires, in my humble opinion the complete reinterpretation of what the Book of Mormon claims to be.  Instead of the book being a record of 2 great nations of people, it must be reinterpreted as the story of a small inconsequential party who left no evidence of its existence which is a far cry from what the book claims to be.

The Bible likewise is puffed up with self-importance galore, even though it all takes place within a very small space and time. Compared to the great empires of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece, and Rome, it has had an outsized impact.  How is that even possible?

4 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

 I am familiar with alternative theories but frankly don't find them very believable or credible. For me the most faithful and sensible reading of the book is as a spiritual work of fiction.  Accepting the book as a work of fiction doesn't hurt my brain as much as trying to force the other theories into believably. And I'm comfortable with the book being a work of fiction.

I see no problem with someone taking the BofM as a pseudepigraphon.  Or even as straight fiction like that of J. R. R. Tolkien, which has a carefully crafted geography.  It is pretty incredible or even preposterous.

The problem is that, if you take it at all seriously, even just for the sake of empirical testing of a wild hypothesis, you are left with the tight historical and archeological correlation of the Jaredite culture with Las Olmecas, the only literate civilization in the New World of that time, followed by Nephite-Mulekite culture fitting nicely into the Grijalva River Valley of southern Mexico.  The massive populations (in the millions) and their complex cultures fit the BofM all too well.  Non-Mormon scholars in Mexico even found evidence of Hebrew language in a family of languages (Sawi-Zaa) in Oaxaca and the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, which I summarize and exemplify online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/56696298/SAWI-ZAA  .

[Robert F. Smith]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Agreed, but my question was whether the Lord’s statement to Joseph Smith (no pious scribe involved), that the Native Americans were Lamanites and Jews, was hyperbole?

Or, is it your assertion that Joseph was not able to accurately dictate/transcribe what the Lord was telling him?

Once again, one must cite each source and quote it exactly.  Joseph Smith said a lot of things, including private speculations.  If Joseph claimed that some Amerinds were Lamanites, that might be true of some Amerinds but not others.  My impression is that Joseph uncritically considered all Amerinds to be Lamanites.  If I recall correctly, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism even takes the broad view that all Amerinds might be termed "Lamanites" just by mere association, not necessarily by blood.

[rockpond]

34 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Once again, one must cite each source and quote it exactly.  Joseph Smith said a lot of things, including private speculations.  If Joseph claimed that some Amerinds were Lamanites, that might be true of some Amerinds but not others.  My impression is that Joseph uncritically considered all Amerinds to be Lamanites.  If I recall correctly, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism even takes the broad view that all Amerinds might be termed "Lamanites" just by mere association, not necessarily by blood.

I’m not referring to what Joseph said, my question was if you feel the Lord was employing hyperbole when he, through Joseph, referred to the Native Americans (circa mid 1800’s) as Jews and Lamanites.

[Thinking]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yeh, but to whom?  Who is always attracted to fluff?  Silly billies?  Always has been. 

I wonder sometimes if some faithful LDS have selective amnesia about what was taught not too long ago.

"When Columbus discovered America, the native inhabitants, the American Indians as they were soon to be designated, were a people of mixed blood and origin. Chiefly they were Lamanites...The American Indians, however, as Columbus found them also had other blood than that of Israel in their veins...But with it all, for the great majority of the descendants of the original inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere, the dominant blood lineage is that of Israel." (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 32-33)

[Calm]

Knowing things have been taught in the past doesn’t lock us into one way of viewing them. 
 

I am getting the impression the Church is shifting in how it wants its leaders to lead to more to providing some landmarks and signs for us to guide ourselves and the groups we are traveling with on the path of discipleship as opposed to what some expected and saw church leaders providing in the past, something closer to a 7 countries in 7 days tour guide, with specific stops all laid out for one including what exotic food to try, best deals to be had, etc. 

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, Thinking said:

I wonder sometimes if some faithful LDS have selective amnesia about what was taught not too long ago.

"When Columbus discovered America, the native inhabitants, the American Indians as they were soon to be designated, were a people of mixed blood and origin. Chiefly they were Lamanites...The American Indians, however, as Columbus found them also had other blood than that of Israel in their veins...But with it all, for the great majority of the descendants of the original inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere, the dominant blood lineage is that of Israel." (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 32-33)

Ah, yes!  Making the entire Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints accountable for a particular teaching by creative use of the passive voice!  Well done, Thinking!  Well done!  (You're in, ummm, good company!  Congratulations!)   *

* It could definitely be argued (persuasively, in my view) that your example is one of the best reasons why Book of Mormon introductory materials contained in the preamble to the book itself were altered (such alterations not only being wise, but inspired, again in my view) in the way they were a few years ago.  But, heck, "Thinking," don't let that stop you from using that single, broad brush to paint all 16 million members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints!

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Knowing things have been taught in the past doesn’t lock us into one way of viewing them. 
 

I am getting the impression the Church is shifting in how it wants its leaders to lead to more to providing some landmarks and signs for us to guide ourselves and the groups we are traveling with on the path of discipleship as opposed to what some expected and saw church leaders providing in the past, something closer to a 7 countries in 7 days tour guide, with specific stops all laid out for one including what exotic food to try, best deals to be had, etc. 

I like your analogy.  It's what I both liked and didn't like about the eight-day whirlwind tour that my family and I took of Spain a few years ago.  Yes, since I was only going to have a chance to spend a limited amount of time in the country as a whole, as well as in each individual place we visit, I wanted to see what a broad consensus among our hosts considered to be "the very highlights."  On the other hand, when there aren't so many time constraints, I'm the guy who's taking the leisurely walk, reading all of the plaques, Googling background information on a particular site on my phone, trying to have more in-depth conversation with the guides, and so on, while everyone else has already seen what they consider is important and is "back on the bus," as it were.

In a way, as a traveler and an amateur historian, it's a curse!

Ah, well!  I don't necessarily think it's a bad curse!

[Thinking]

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Ah, yes!  Making the entire Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints accountable for a particular teaching by creative use of the passive voice!  Well done, Thinking!  Well done!  (You're in, ummm, good company!  Congratulations!)   *

* It could definitely be argued (persuasively, in my view) that your example is one of the best reasons why Book of Mormon introductory materials contained in the preamble to the book itself were altered (such alterations not only being wise, but inspired, again in my view) in the way they were a few years ago.  But, heck, "Thinking," don't let that stop you from using that single, broad brush to paint all 16 million members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints!

Are you saying that Bruce R. McConkie's teaching was not a commonly held belief by many LDS?

[Kenngo1969]

17 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Are you saying that Bruce R. McConkie's teaching was not a commonly held belief by many LDS?

I don't think, in light of recent changes to the introductory material to the Book of Mormon, that it matters one way or the other.

[rockpond]

47 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Are you saying that Bruce R. McConkie's teaching was not a commonly held belief by many LDS?

 

29 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I don't think, in light of recent changes to the introductory material to the Book of Mormon, that it matters one way or the other.

I think it does.  If, several decades ago, members and leaders held to a belief that later turned out to be wrong (or that we believe now to be wrong) than we ought to try to understand why so we don’t repeat that type of error.