Polynesia Populated from S.E. Asia NOT the America's in Direct Conflict with LDS Tradition

[webbles]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm curious as to your thoughts about whether Mormon's claim (assuming it to be true) would be based on . . . what?  Patrilineal descent?  Matrilineal?  All of his ancestors going back 1,000 being descended from Nephi?

Thanks,

-Smac

I've wondered about his claim.  By his time, pretty much everyone would be descended from Nephi.  So, I'm not sure what he is trying to tell us with that claim.

[The Nehor]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm curious as to your thoughts about whether Mormon's claim (assuming it to be true) would be based on . . . what?  Patrilineal descent?  Matrilineal?  All of his ancestors going back 1,000 being descended from Nephi?

Thanks,

-Smac

I have no idea. That is why I said “if” it were true. The problem is it would have involved some pretty close relations getting married….at first at least. To be 100% the children of Nephi would have had to marry each other or marry his grandchildren. Unlikely if they were living the Law of Moses. The most obvious identifier would be if it were patrilineal all the way through and he had an unbroken series of male ancestors going straight to Nephi. His Y chromosome would have been very close to the one Nephi had. Looking at X chromosome DNA if he were only descended from the descendants of Nephi and his wife then the DNA would be odd. If it were a mixture it probably would have been diluted by then.

[Fair Dinkum]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Then I'm sort of confused why you are complaing when I provided you with the information you requested.

You did did provide information that supports the churches position, thank you for that.  Can you provide any information that supports the churches position that doesn’t emanate from inside of the church?  Perhaps non church, evidence based, peer reviewed studies that unknowingly support the churches position?

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am not requesting or expecting that.  But I am hoping to see something more than what you have said here, which does not include any meaningful interaction with the materials.  No critique.  No evaluation of evidence and arguments.  Just a conclusory putdown.

 

 

 

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

 

What I don't see if you demonstrating one lick of familiarity with any of "the arguments made by Sorenson."  No effort to interact with or address the evidence and arguments he presents.

None.

Again, I'm not impressed with your approach.  It's lazy.

As in lazy learner?

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You make no effort to address the evidence and arguments at hand.  You expect us to go look for it and present it to you.  And even then you preemptively reject it by pointing to a nebulous "scientific community" and your expectations about what it "would" do.

Out of curiosity, what "scentific community" are you referencing here?

Well, you've said and done nothing to demonstrate that.  You are repeatedly refusing to explain anything.  You are not offering a lick of analysis, evidence, reasoning or anything else.  Just a conclusory statement.

I wasn't aggrandizing myself.  I was rebutting your implication that I am operating out of confirmation bias.  

Okay.  Your participation is . . . not much.  Again, you present no argument.  No analysis.  No reasoning.  No evidence.  Just a series of "what about..." threads that come pre-packaged with unexplained conclusions that the Church is bad, is corrupt, is dishonest, is stupid, is falsified, etc.

I just don't see any evidence that you are doing any meaningful work or exerting any particular effort in addressing these topics.  

I'm suggesting that you aren't interacting with any of the materials I provided.  You aren't addressing the points made, the evidence submitted.  You are resorting to the argumentum ad populum fallacy.  Sorenson said X.  Some nebulous "community" has not publicly come out to support Sorenson's arguments, ergo Sorenson is wrong.

Whether something is true or not is seldom a popularity contest.  

I hope you have a change of heart.  I hope you give these things a fair hearing.

Thanks,

-Smac

Again what I would like to see is supporting evidence that doesn’t start with the conclusion but is derived at from the supporting evidence.  Any non church supporting study would be a good start.

[The Nehor]

32 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I just got a phone call from 1985.  They want Spencer Kimball’s BoM worldview back. The caller said it got lost

We’re sorry, this call could not be completed as dialed. The intended recipient is trapped in ancient Australia but if you leave your name and number he will get back to you as soon as he develops another time machine. *beep*

[The Nehor]

43 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Yup.  The iodine drop in the ocean apologetic theory is always a safe harbor to maintain belief. Non detectable but counter to LDS traditional claims. But hey it wouldn’t be the first and won’t be the last prophetic claim thrown under the bus to protect belief. 

You mean the traditional claim that the Americas were empty of people except for a few Mulekites and the last of the genocidal Jaredites? That view doesn’t really work with the text of the Book of Mormon or what we know of history.

[OGHoosier]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Can you provide any information that supports the churches position that doesn’t emanate from inside of the church?  Perhaps non church, evidence based, peer reviewed studies that unknowingly support the churches position?

What does it matter, knowingly or unknowingly, if the evidence is sound? 

 I echo @smac97's concern that you do not appear to be engaging with the information so much as dismissing it based on a lack of perceived scholarly enthusiasm. Case in point, all from this past thread:

Quote

But I am quite aware of the augments they make and I am also quite aware that they are isolated conclusions with little support outside of the small Mormon bubble, Dr. Coe not withstanding.

Quote

You're suggesting that there to wide spread support of Sorenson's assertions? Pray do share.  I am obviously unaware of this wide spread support and acceptance , outside of Mormonism, of his theories.

Quote

As I stated earlier I am very aware of the arguments made by Sorenson, what I don't see is the scientific community clamoring over themselves to line up in support of his assertions.  In fact just the opposite.  Where his claims compelling, the scientific community would be massing in his support but instead he remains a lone wolf in the wilderness.

The problem is that this tendency is nothing more than a heuristic.  It's a cognitive shortcut. Inquiry cannot progress this way: if mass expert endorsement is required to establish the validity of a theory then you enter into a chicken-and-egg problem. Engagement with the actual data is critical, as is realism about the foibles of consensus. 

[poptart]

10 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

It's long been known that the Islands of the Pacific were populated by a seafaring people migrating out of South East Asia not the America's.  Further studies have only doubled down on this reality.  All scientific specialties including DNA, Archeology, Palaeobotany, Paleolinguistics to name just a few, all support this SE Asian migration.  Other then some South American DNA that was introduced after the Book of Mormon timeline, in approximately 1200 AD and the sweet potato and gord, see here there is little to no reason we should refer to Pacific Islanders as Laminates.

A new study just released in Nature seen here adds further support for this migration from south east Asia and not from the Americas.

The evidence seems overwhelming that Pacific Islanders are not descendants of Lehi, in direct conflict with LDS tradition.  The church seems to have supplanted the actual culture of the Pacific Islanders with one found in the Book of Mormon of which this island population had no connection to.

What if any evidence is there, other than that which I've shared, that would support our LDS tradition? If it exists, I would like to see it.  Otherwise is it time for the church to just admit they were wrong and give these people back their true identity and culture?

More Here

Mind educating me on this?  Does LDS tradition hold that the Polynesians came over from the Americas?  I had stories handed down, like you said it's been long known where Polynesians came from, even mom who went to BYUH never heard of us coming from the mainland.   

[Fair Dinkum]

38 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

What does it matter, knowingly or unknowingly, if the evidence is sound? 

 I echo @smac97's concern that you do not appear to be engaging with the information so much as dismissing it based on a lack of perceived scholarly enthusiasm. Case in point, all from this past thread:

The problem is that this tendency is nothing more than a heuristic.  It's a cognitive shortcut. Inquiry cannot progress this way: if mass expert endorsement is required to establish the validity of a theory then you enter into a chicken-and-egg problem. Engagement with the actual data is critical, as is realism about the foibles of consensus. 

I hear your same argument with those in support of intelligent design vs evolution. 

There is widespread support for evolution across a wide spectrum evidence led to the conclusion whereas the intelligent design proponents start with their premise then work backward searching for evidence to support their conclusion. 

Why does Sorenson stand on a scientific island?  because his conclusions are not driven by evidence but by the conclusion he had to reach to protect church truth claims. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

When I was the editor of a history journal, we actually published on this topic (the peopling of the Pacific) multiple times. Beyond the acknowledgement that there was clearly a significant migration out of Taiwan, through island Southeast Asia, and into the Pacific, there is no academic consensus on this topic, and in fact, scholars who work in this area are quite feisty about that fact. In many cases, we have very clear evidence that islands were inhabited long before Austronesian seafarers arrived. Interestingly, nearly everywhere they touched, some form of Austronesian became the dominant language, even when there appears to be very little Austronesian DNA in the genetic mix. (Cf. the languages of coastal PNG and Fijian, for example.)

One of the last scholarly articles that we published on this topic included an important reminder: language =/= culture =/= ethnicity (DNA).

Even the presence of the sweet potato in the Pacific is still a point of serious contention amongst scholars.

[Fair Dinkum]

2 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

As early as Jacob (i.e. within the arrival generation) they has changed to using those terms to be social/religious/political terms not genetic/family terms*. The population numbers make it pretty obvious that other groups were already there, so there is no reason to require that the entire population was the direct offspring of the children of Lehi.

 

*Jacob 1:14 "But I, Jacob, shall not hereafter distinguish them by these names, but I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites, or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings."

Thanks, I’m quite up to date on Book of Mormon apologetics 

[Fair Dinkum]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

I'm curious where that idea is coming from?  Does the Polynesian culture center (owned by the Church) talk about how they are descended from Lehi?  Where has the church "stolen the foundational identity and culture of an entire people"?

Q: does the church promote the idea that Polynesians are Lamanites? Yes or No?

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

I'm curious where that idea is coming from?  Does the Polynesian culture center (owned by the Church) talk about how they are descended from Lehi?  Where has the church "stolen the foundational identity and culture of an entire people"?

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Lamanites/Relationship_to_Polynesians/Are_they_descendants

[Fair Dinkum]

59 minutes ago, poptart said:

Mind educating me on this?  Does LDS tradition hold that the Polynesians came over from the Americas?  I had stories handed down, like you said it's been long known where Polynesians came from, even mom who went to BYUH never heard of us coming from the mainland.   

An example

With pride I tell those who come to my office that a Lamanite is a descendant of one Lehi who left Jerusalem some 600 years before Christ and with his family crossed the mighty deep and landed in America. And Lehi and his family became the ancestors of all of the Indian and Mestizo tribes in North and South and Central America and in the islands of the sea, for in the middle of their history there were those who left America in ships of their making and went to the islands of the sea…they are in nearly all the islands of the sea from Hawaii south to southern New Zealand…Today we have many Lamanite leaders in the Church. For example, in Tonga, where 20 percent of all the people in the islands belong to the Church, we have three large stakes. Two of them are presided over wholly by Lamanites and the other almost wholly by them. There are three stakes in Samoa and another is to be organized in those small Samoan islands. Four more stakes with Lamanite leaders! - Spencer Kimball 

[JustAnAustralian]

25 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Thanks, I’m quite up to date on Book of Mormon apologetics 

So what's the point in people pointing out that what you say are problems aren't actually problems if you're just going to ignore them?

[Fair Dinkum]

32 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

So what's the point in people pointing out that what you say are problems aren't actually problems if you're just going to ignore them?

Don’t misunderstand me.  I appreciate your participating in this thread and I understand that you’re merely sharing how you’ve navigated this subject.  I encountered the apologetic work around you referenced about 35 years ago. It solved one problem but creates other problems in the process.  Turning nephites and Lamanites into political titles ignores its use when used to distinguish the dark and loathsome Lamanites both before and after Jacob within the Book of Mormon.  I just never found the apologetic argument compelling or satisfying.  

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Q: does the church promote the idea that Polynesians are Lamanites? Yes or No?

I would say no.  I don't recall ever being taught that all Polynesians are Lamanites.  I've been taught that Polynesians have Lamanite ancestry, but that they are also descendant from other sea voyagers.  I also don't believe the Polynesian culture center promotes that Polynesians are Lamanites (I haven't been there so I don't know first hand).

Did some members believe that all Polynesians are Lamanites, sure.  Just like some members believe that the Book of Mormon talks about the North and South America continents and that some members believe that the American continents were practically empty when the Lehites reached the Americas (neither of which I believe the Book of Mormon attests).  That doesn't mean the "church promotes" those ideas.  It would be like saying that caffeine is against the Word of Wisdom just because many (possibly a majority) of members believe that caffeine is against the Word of Wisdom.

[webbles]

28 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Don’t misunderstand me.  I appreciate your participating in this thread and I understand that you’re merely sharing how you’ve navigated this subject.  I encountered the apologetic work around you referenced about 35 years ago. It solved one problem but creates other problems in the process.  Turning nephites and Lamanites into political titles ignores its use when used to distinguish the dark and loathsome Lamanites both before and after Jacob within the Book of Mormon.  I just never found the apologetic argument compelling or satisfying.  

The usage of Nephites and Lamanites is used as political titles, religious titles, family titles, and language descriptions.  It is more than just "white skin" vs "dark skin".  Similar to how Jewish is more than just descendant of Judah or Israel.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Lamanites/Relationship_to_Polynesians/Are_they_descendants

Thanks but I don't see how that says the church has "stolen the foundational identity and culture of an entire people".

[Tacenda]

15 minutes ago, webbles said:

Thanks but I don't see how that says the church has "stolen the foundational identity and culture of an entire people".

It's stolen if the church is wrong and it really isn't what the church says. The same for the Native Americans.

Edited September 24, 2021 by Tacenda

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Q: does the church promote the idea that Polynesians are Lamanites? Yes or No?

Anyone who demands a simple yes or no answer to a complex question is generally not worth answering. I do not think this case is an exception to that general rule.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

There is widespread support for evolution across a wide spectrum evidence led to the conclusion whereas the intelligent design proponents start with their premise then work backward searching for evidence to support their conclusion.

That's kind of how science works.  Evolution was first started from a premise and then worked backwards searching for evidence.  The evidence became more and more widespread that now it is considered factual.  But when dealing with odd pieces in the evolution timeline, the scientist starts with the assumption that evolution is fact and then works backwards looking for evidence.  Anytime you do science, you start with a theory or hypothesis and then work to prove/disprove it.

A lot of our major archeological finds are like that.  Someone believed that the Odyssey and Iliad were more than just poems and set out to prove it.  They then actually find the city of Troy.  People believe that the Bible is factual and set out to prove it.  They then find engravings that mention David and Solomon.  In neither case was the Odyssey, Iliad, and Bible proven true but great finds were discovered because of it that change our view of history.  In some cases, those finds were argued over or ignored, but over time, it was shown that it was true.

One current case related to DNA that I find interesting is the matrilineal line that is in Iceland and appears to be from the Americas.  It also appears to be old enough to be pre-Columbus.  So, the best hypothesis is that a Native American women was taken back to Iceland in 1000AD.  But there is a little evidence that the same matrilineal line might exist in Europe pre-Columbus or that a post-Columbus women was transported to Iceland.  But if a Native America women was taken back to Iceland, what about the situation of an Icelander man leaving a pregnant Native American women behind in America.  There is a possibility but no one has yet found any DNA evidence that can prove it and that DNA will be hard to find at this point.

[OGHoosier]

3 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I hear your same argument with those in support of intelligent design vs evolution. 

That doesn't  respond to the logic of my argument or demonstrate its incorrectness. Just saying "your argument is associated with intelligent design" is basically the intellectual version of reductio ad Hitlerum. In other words, an association fallacy. 

3 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

 

There is widespread support for evolution across a wide spectrum evidence led to the conclusion whereas the intelligent design proponents start with their premise then work backward searching for evidence to support their conclusion. 

As usual @webbles is quite right. I can't help but feel that the mindreading fallacy might be in play here.  

Also I can't help but feel that pretty much all origin of life research would fall under this same interdict, no? Shall we condemn them too? Or does the gravitas of academia rescue them from the seemingly obvious inconsistency? But that implies a clear double standard, which is also fallacious...so your condemnation is probably not safe to uphold. 

3 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Why does Sorenson stand on a scientific island?  because his conclusions are not driven by evidence but by the conclusion he had to reach to protect church truth claims. 

CFR please. On both the "standing on a scientific island" and the mindreading portion. Just because Sorenson's ideals haven't become the mainstream (yet) doesn't mean that he's on an island. 

[mrmarklin]

14 hours ago, Raingirl said:

Oh look, another thread from FD finding an excuse to criticize the church. Big surprise. 

I read this thread and am surprised that no one has mentioned Thor Heyerdahl whose pet hobby horse was emigration from South America to Polynesia. He went so far as to construct a balsa raft which he sailed to from Peru to Polynesia to prove his theory. 
There is a very good book about his adventures, called Kon-Tiki. AFAIK he was not LDS. 

I have never heard that the Church has ever promoted the idea that Polynesians are descended from Lehi. And I’ve been a member longer than most of you are old. Just because a GA offers an opinion in a speech or an article somewhere does not make that pronouncement doctrine or promotion. 

Edited September 24, 2021 by mrmarklin

[why me]

15 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

It's long been known that the Islands of the Pacific were populated by a seafaring people migrating out of South East Asia not the America's.  Further studies have only doubled down on this reality.  All scientific specialties including DNA, Archeology, Palaeobotany, Paleolinguistics to name just a few, all support this SE Asian migration. 

However, your premise does not prove the book of mormon false. The church's foundation is the book of mormon. Is it true or false? This is the heart of the matter. How one interprets who were the lamanites or nephites is a secondary issue. If the book was to be proven false, it would have come when it first appeared. It was under investigation at the time. And certain theories were presented. But the witnesses remained firm in their conviction, even on their death beds or even when they left the church. Not to mention Emma who remained firm about the book of mormon and her husband. Emma had the power to destroy the church when BY moved west with the saints and began polygamy in earnest. But she did not deny the book of mormon. This is what matters. The people directly involved held firm.

[poptart]

11 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

An example

With pride I tell those who come to my office that a Lamanite is a descendant of one Lehi who left Jerusalem some 600 years before Christ and with his family crossed the mighty deep and landed in America. And Lehi and his family became the ancestors of all of the Indian and Mestizo tribes in North and South and Central America and in the islands of the sea, for in the middle of their history there were those who left America in ships of their making and went to the islands of the sea…they are in nearly all the islands of the sea from Hawaii south to southern New Zealand…Today we have many Lamanite leaders in the Church. For example, in Tonga, where 20 percent of all the people in the islands belong to the Church, we have three large stakes. Two of them are presided over wholly by Lamanites and the other almost wholly by them. There are three stakes in Samoa and another is to be organized in those small Samoan islands. Four more stakes with Lamanite leaders! - Spencer Kimball 

Ok, I'll toss this in with one of those "faith" Things LDS faithful follow along with the ban on coffee yet allowing cafinated soda.  Totally meaningless to an outsider but when you're from a privileged suburbanite family that believes things like that you keep quiet and tow the party line.  Kinda irrigating how some branches/sects of the Christian religion have those things esp when they conflict with modern learning and science.  As of late it sure seems like it's the mainland having these issues.  Whelp, I am an outsider.  Thanks for sharing, it's always interesting to hear these things esp. When you're related to the people in question and you know better.

Edited September 24, 2021 by poptart