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

[smac97]

44 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Meh. This isn't a tradition I was raised with. My understanding is that the Church's official position is that there has been no revelation stating this is actually the case.

Nor is there any scriptural evidence which would tell us exactly where these people originated. In fact, the people closest to the events recorded in scripture believed that everyone who left with Hagoth...went down with the ship (Alma 63:8).

And even then, Hagoth was a Nephite, not a Lamanite.

I found this 1975 Ensign article interesting:

Quote

The term Lamanite was first applied to the literal family of Laman, Lehi’s eldest son. This name very soon took on a broader application, however, when Laman, Lemuel, and some of the sons of Ishmael rebelled against and sought to kill Nephi, in whom the Lord had vested his authority. At that time the Lord cut them off from his presence and caused a darker skin coloring to come upon them. (See 2 Ne. 5:19–21.) Thereafter the name Lamanite referred to a religious/political faction whose distinguishing feature was its opposition to the church. (See Jacob 1:13–14.) Lineage became an increasingly minor factor, and later there are many examples of Lamanites becoming Nephites and Nephites becoming Lamanites.

For nearly 200 years after the coming of Christ to the Americas, there were no Lamanites “nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God.” (4 Ne. 1:17.) Soon, however, a part of the people fell away and took upon them the name of Lamanites; “therefore there began to be Lamanites again in the land.” (4 Ne. 1:20.) Clearly, Lamanite in this case again refers to the state of righteousness of a political/religious group, presumably a composite of the descendants of many of the original colonists in the New World. The Lamanites of this definition survived beyond the close of the Book of Mormon record, and it is these people from whom the Lamanites of today descended. That is to say, they are the descendants of Lehi, Ishmael, and Zoram (see D&C 3:17–18); they are the descendants of Mulek and the others of his colony (see Hel. 6:10; Omni 1:14, 15); and they may also be descended from other groups of whom we have no record. Certainly they have mixed with many other lineages at the far reaches of their dispersal in the Americas and most of the islands of the Pacific since the time when Moroni bade them farewell in A.D. 421.

See also this comment from a 1981 Ensign article:

Quote

Although the relationship between the Polynesian peoples and the adventurer Hagoth (see Alma 63:5–8) is not clear—he being a Nephite and the Polynesians appearing to be Lamanites—Church leaders have time and time again referred to the Polynesians as children of Lehi. In the Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 4, father Lehi blessed the offspring of his evil sons Laman and Lemuel and promised them that their posterity would one day have all the blessings promised to Abraham. The Latter-day Saints believe this refers specifically to the blessing of membership in the Lord’s church and of holding the priesthood. Latter-day Saint missionaries believed and taught that the Maoris were chosen sons and daughters of Abraham. The elders expected the Maoris to accept easily the restored gospel and to assume their rightful place as leaders in the Church. There was almost no racial prejudice on the part of the Mormons toward the Maoris.

And this essay by Robert Parsons:

Quote

Does the Church have an official position on any connection between Hagoth and the Polynesians? In a letter to the mission president of the Samoan Mission dated September 6, 1972, and signed by N. Eldon Tanner and Marion G. Romney, under the letterhead of the First Presidency, they wrote:

In your letter of September 6, 1972, you ask if the Polynesian people are Lamanites or Nephites. There has been much speculation about the origin of these people. We have, however, no scriptural evidence or revelation from the Lord that would tell us exactly where these people came from or their background.

Teachings of General Authorities

Notwithstanding this 1972 letter from the First Presidency, we have many definite statements from members of the Twelve, and from Presidents of the Church reiterating their firm belief that the Polynesians originated from Lehi’s American colony. Elder Mark E. Petersen, in his conference message of 1962, says:

The Polynesian Saints are characterized by a tremendous faith. Why do they have this great faith? It is because these people are of the blood of Israel. They are heirs to the promises of the Book of Mormon. God is now awakening them to their great destiny. As Latter-day Saints we have always believed that the Polynesians are descendants of Lehi and blood relatives of the American Indians, despite the contrary theories of other men (Petersen 457).

The building of temples among the Polynesian people has been the source of many statements connecting these people with the Book of Mormon. When the cornerstone was laid at the New Zealand Temple, Elder Hugh B. Brown stated in the closing prayer:

We thank Thee, O God, for revealing to us the Book of Mormon, the story of the ancient inhabitants of America. We thank Thee that from among those inhabitants, the ancestors of these whose heads are bowed before Thee here, came from the western shores of America into the South Seas pursuant to Thy plan and now their descendants humbly raise their voices in grateful acknowledgement of Thy kindness, Thy mercy, and Thy love for them and those who went before them.

We humbly thank Thee that this building is erected in this land, so that those faithful Maoris who came here in early days, descendants of Father Lehi, may be remembered by their descendants and saved through the ordinances that will, in this House, be performed in their behalf (Cummings 63; quoted in Cheesman 14).

In the opening sentences of his dedicatory prayer at the New Zealand Temple, April 20, 1958, President David O. McKay stated:

We express gratitude that to these fertile islands thou didst guide descendants of Father Lehi and hast enabled them to prosper (McKay 2).

Later, Elder Gordon B. Hinckley commented upon Europeans being assembled with the Maoris of the Pacific at the dedication of the New Zealand Temple: “Again, there was something prophetic about it. Here were two great strains of the house of Israel the children of Ephraim from the isles of Britain, and the children of Lehi from the isles of the Pacific” (509).

Nearly twenty years later, in a talk to the Samoans in 1976, President Spencer W. Kimball said:

I thought to read to you a sacred scripture which pertains especially to you the islanders of the Pacific. It is in the sixty-third chapter of Alma [He then read the account of Hagoth.]

And so it seems to me rather clear that your ancestors moved northward and crossed a part of the South Pacific. You did not bring your records with you, but you brought much food and provisions. And so we have a great congregation of people in the South seas who came from the Nephites, and who came from the land southward and went to the land northward, which could have been Hawaii. And then the further settlement could have been a move southward again to all of these islands and even to New Zealand. The Lord knows what he is doing when he sends his people from one place to another. That was the scattering of Israel. Some of them remained in America and went from Alaska to the southern point. And others of you came this direction.

President Spencer W. Kimball continued by quoting former President Joseph F. Smith as saying:

“I would like to say to you brethren and sisters from New Zealand, you are some of Hagoth’s people, and there is No Perhaps about it!” He didn’t want any arguments about it. That was definite. So you are of Israel. You have been scattered. Now you are being gathered (15).

It might be of interest to you to know that when Elder Spencer W. Kimball set me apart for my mission to New Zealand in 1946, he said: “We bless you with power and the ‘gift of tongues’ to learn the language of the Maoris. . . . We set you apart among the Children of Lehi to do good.”

And here (same link) :

Quote

The Israelite descent of the Polynesians is more difficult to trace in Mormon doctrine. Indeed, there is no evidence that Joseph Smith or the first Mormon missionaries sent to Polynesia in the 1840s ever made the connection. As far as is known, the doctrine was first preached publicly by Tahitian LDS missionary Louisa Pratt who identified the Nephites as “the ancient fathers of the Tahitians” at a meeting in 1851. The Israelite ancestry of the Hawaiians was also preached by the Mormon missionaries in Hawaii from the following year at least. By the late 1850s, Mormon leader Brigham Young was referring to this doctrine, and an article in a Mormon periodical in 1868 claimed with respect to the “Sandwich Islanders” that “it is well understood by us that these peoples are of the same stock as the Lamanites.” This article also claimed that native New Zealanders “have the same origin.”

A connection between the Maori and the history of the Nephites and Lamanites was firmly established at this time. On April 7, 1888, Ezra F. Richards gave the Maori conference attenders “a short account of their forefathers leaving the land of Jerusalem and going to America, and touched briefly upon some of their great battles, some building boats and leaving America.” On the 8 April, Sondra Sanders, Jr., gave the Saints “an account of some of the wars and contentions that arose between the Nephites and Lamanites, also the reason that they became a dark skinned people and the promises that had been made concerning their becoming ‘a white and delightsome people.’“ And on the 9 April, after discussing the scattering of Israel, M. S. Marriot suggested that the time had come for “the gathering of the Maori people.” Thereafter, the Book’s teachings on Israelites became a focus for proselyting work among the Maori. As Francis Kirkham, an LDS missionary to the Maori in the 1890s remembered, “we would go to them, hold up a copy of the Book of Mormon and tell them that we had a book that told the history of their ancestors” (Barber 12–15).

And this KnowWhy from BookOfMormonCentral:

Quote

During the lifetimes of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, Latter-day Saint missionary work extended to the Pacific Islands, Mexico, and South America.10 As with earlier missionary efforts to native North American peoples, this new wave of proselyting emphasized the Lamanite identity of the native groups of these lands and promised them the blessings of Lehi.11

As the Church grew in North and South America and in the Pacific Islands, prophets continued to affirm the native peoples of these lands were children of Lehi.12 In 1959, then-Elder Spencer W. Kimball spoke to “our kinsmen of the isles of the sea and the Americas . . . Mexicans in Mexico; Guatemalans in Guatemala; Chilianos in Chile” and “Polynesians of the Pacific” and taught that “the Lord calls you Lamanites.”13
...
This information is important in helping readers realize that the identity of those called Lamanites in the Book of Mormon is nuanced and complicated.18 Since the Book of Mormon very likely presents a scenario where Lehi’s descendants intermingled with peoples already present in the Americas,19 and since Church leaders historically have spoken of “Lamanites” in very broad terms,20 efforts to pinpoint which specific groups of Native Americans or Pacific Islanders are direct descendants of Lehi, whether by DNA testing or by interpreting the teachings of past prophets, is problematic.21 “The Church asserts that all members are part of the covenant house of Israel either by descent or adoption but does not take a position on the specific geography of the Book of Mormon or claim complete knowledge about the origins of any specific modern group in the Americas or the Pacific.”22

See also this FAIR article: Polynesians as descendants of the Lamanites in the Book of Mormon

44 minutes ago, Amulek said:

If you want to see cultural appropriation, pull up your Disney+ subscription tonight and watch Zombies (the teenage musical).

As for "supplant[ing] the actual culture of Pacific Islanders," what exactly are you talking about here? Like, are guys from Samoa now swapping out their tribal tattoos for feathered head-dresses and doing rain dances or something?

Also, I think you have to distinguish between 'supplantation' and 'adoption.'

I've known plenty of Native Americans and Polynesians over the years, and I've talked to many who have read the Book of Mormon and see themselves, their culture, their traditions, etc. in there. In other words, it's them doing the adoption - not the Church.

My brother is currently the bishop of a Polynesian ward in Utah County.  My parents, who are of almost entirely Scottish extraction (with wee bits of Welsh, English, French and German) spent many years living in Hawaii.  Most of my siblings (and I) were born there (I lived there until I was five).  I have a Hawaiian sister and a Tahitian brother.  My brother (the bishop) spent 17 or so years living in Samoa, and is married to a wonderful Samoan lady.  

I have long felt a strong connection to the islands, haole though I may be, and a lot of innate affection and respect for our Polynesian brothers and sisters.  

Amulek is correct in stating that we have no direct scriptural link between the Lamanites and the islanders.  But I'm fine with the traditions and non-canonized statements from the Brethren that find that link.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 24, 2021 by smac97

[Fair Dinkum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't think that is the problem here.  I think the critique is that you are not demonstrating or explaining the reasoning, evidence, etc. that gets you to "being right."

Again, I've seen this schtick a lot in litigation.  Sometimes lawyers do it, but more often I see it in pro se litigants.  They have a position, a conclusion reached.  They are absolutist in their perspective on it.  That conclusion becomes the lens through which they view the facts and the law.  But this posture doesn't really work in an adversarial construct because there are rules, laws, procedures, etc. in place to compile, vet and examine evidence and arguments, and a (presumptively) impartial judge who gets to make the final call.  The litigant can't merely insist that everyone else take his conclusions and say-so as definitive.  Instead, the legal process requires him to actually prove his case.  To present the facts, to lay out the evidence, and to summarize the law and persuade the judge to apply it in his favor.

FD, with genuine respect and affection, I gotta tell you: you haven't done any of that.  You haven't even come close to making your case, to presenting evidence, argument, analysis, etc. such as could persuade others that you are "right."  Instead, you periodically post a gripe-of-the-week, drop a link or two, and then present a conclusory "prove me wrong" request.

Before you declare your lack of "pleasure in being right," I encourage you to give the Restored Gospel a fair shake. 

I don't see that in your posts.  As I noted previously:

The course of conduct you are pursuing is pretty much guaranteed to lead you to the conclusion that the Church is not "everything that it claims to be."  There is no institution or individual that could withstand the sort of relentless faultfinding campaign you have been pursuing against the Church.  To paraphrase the (entirely fictitious) quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln: "When you look for the bad in [the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints] expecting to find it, you surely will."

Not really.  You've been criticized for endless faultfinding, for presenting complaints and adverse conclusions about the Church without having meaningfully reviewed or interacted with or addressed substantive scholarship about the issues you find problematic.

Your presence is very welcome.  This board is valuable precisely because there are a diversity of viewpoints present on it.  Presumably you don't come here because you want to speak in an echo chamber.  You are presenting points and ideas and conclusions.  You are being engaged, sometimes critically, on those points and ideas and conclusions.  Rather than take that engagement as an indictment of you as a person, I hope you can take it as a substantive treatment/rejoinder to your comments.  And to the extent someone goes "personal" (it happens, I fall prey to that tendency as well as anyone), I hope you can ignore and/or forgive such instances and proceed to address the merits of the arguments and evidence.

Sounds good.  I encourage you to alter your current approach.  Substantially. 

Stop assuming the worst about the Church and its teachings. 

Hold off on conclusory declarations that the Church's claims are false, or have been falsified, etc. 

Quick stacking the deck.

Quit moving the goalposts.

Take some time and effort to give the Church and its defenders a fair hearing.  Less "The Church's claims are false, prove me wrong."  More "Are the Church's truth claims plausible?"

Read the literature and try to consider it in an open-minded kind of way.  

Set aside the prejudice you are exhibiting against scholarship from Latter-day Saints, and instead study and investigate and respond to that scholarship based on its merits or lack thereof. 

Re-visit your assumptions and expectations about how much secular investigation and evidence can prove or disprove.  

Go back to the fundamentals.  Study, pondering, prayer.  Hope.  Faith.  Real intent.

That's okay.  I don't think anyone is expecting that.

The thing is, you aren't presenting arguments to be countered, you are presenting mostly unadorned and barely substantiated conclusions.  There's a world of difference.

Perhaps not up to your standard but I did critiqued your Sorenson links in this thread and I also credited Sorenson with being ahead of his time.  Time has proven that some of his trans oceanic theories have born some fruit, just not the fruit he might have hoped for when he first proposed his theories.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

You are not doing that.  You are stacking the deck.  Shifting the goalposts.  Relying on logical fallacies (No True Scotsman ("if there is non-apologetic evidence...").  Argumentum ad populorum.  Argumentum ad hominem.  And so on).

I am aware of all of those tactics and honestly hope that I am not being guilty of doing any of those.   I am one person posting answers to posts made by perhaps a dozen.  Its all I can do to keep up so please cut me some slack. I drove my goalpost deep into the ground so that they could not be moved so I question this accusation.  My goal post is my post title.  Seems pretty fixed.  Nothing anyone in this thread has posted or provided, including the Sorenson links you provided has persuaded me that my OP is incorrect.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Oh come on.  Would you be okay with a Latter-day Saint summarily dismissing all of Robert Ritner's scholarship with that reasoning?  "Ritner was a non-believer and needed to undermine the Book of Abraham.  He had an agenda."  Do you find that persuasive?  

No True Scotsman?  Again?

Thanks,

-Smac

Oh I've heard first hand Ritner's motivations being used against his scholarship.  Irrespective motive does matter

[Tacenda]

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And even then, Hagoth was a Nephite, not a Lamanite.

I found this 1975 Ensign article interesting:

See also this comment from a 1981 Ensign article:

And this essay by Robert Parsons:

And here (same link) :

And this KnowWhy from BookOfMormonCentral:

See also this FAIR article: Polynesians as descendants of the Lamanites in the Book of Mormon

My brother is currently the bishop of a Polynesian ward in Utah County.  My parents, who are of almost entirely Scottish extraction (with wee bits of Welsh, English, French and German) spent many years living in Hawaii.  Most of my siblings (and I) were born there (I lived there until I was five).  I have a Hawaiian sister and a Tahitian brother.  My brother (the bishop) spent 17 or so years living in Samoa, and is married to a wonderful Samoan lady.  

I have long felt a strong connection to the islands, haole though I may be, and a lot of innate affection and respect for our Polynesian brothers and sisters.  

Amulek is correct in stating that we have no direct scriptural link between the Lamanites and the islanders.  But I'm fine with the traditions and non-canonized statements from the Brethren that find that link.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I wonder if Pres Nelson has said anything on the matter, since we're only really supposed to believe the current prophet since he trumps the previous one. 

[Fair Dinkum]

Since you both asked this question I will reply to both @smac97 & @OGHoosier

You ask:

Quote

Where is it needed for American-Polynesian contact to have occurred during the Book of Mormon timeline? I know of no such stipulation, please kindly provide one that is not arbitrary. 

To be fair, and I always want to be fair, I'm going to assume that you concede my point that there is (at present) no evidence that would support or back up LDS traditions of any Native American's meeting Pacific Islanders within the Book of Mormon timeline.

So now you want to move the goal post to a time that fits in with scientific finding that supports an interaction of American' and Pacific islanders in the 13th century.  Only problem is that the encounter involved, according to the study, a single encounter/person or small group interaction on one specific island.  So if one accepts that members of that group were Lamanites, then yes those who might depend from that meeting could/would be descendants of Lehi.  But to then take that and leap to included every single in inhabitant of the Pacific and call them all descendants of Lehi based on this one small encounter doesn't seem correct either.

For those seeking more understand on how the church began referring to Pacific islanders as Lamanites I share this article.  Its an interesting read.

HERE

[Fair Dinkum]

Quote

Two of the most famous and unequivocal statements were made by Presi-
dents Heber J. Grant and Joseph F. Smith. At the dedication of the Hawaiian
temple on November 27, 1919, President Grant prayed: "We thank thee that
thousands and tens of thousands of the descendants of Lehi, in this favored
land, have come to a knowledge of the Gospel. president Joseph F smith said, said to

a group of Maori Saints in Salt Lake City, "I would like to say to you
brethren and sisters from New Zealand, you are some of Hagoth's people,
and there is no perhaps about it."
During Spencer W. Kimball's tenure as President of the Church, he has
repeatedly made explicit, significant statements regarding Polynesian deri-
vation. In the December, 1975, Ensign , for example, he said "These descen-
dants of the Book of Mormon peoples . . . numbered in the millions and
covered the islands of the Pacific and the Americas. ... I rejoice that it has
been my privilege to carry the Gospel to the Lamanites from the Pacific
Ocean to the Atlantic . . . and in the islands from Hawaii to New Zealand."19
This article also connects the Polynesians to the Lamanites, an important
point members of the First Presidency were apparently unwilling to define

Where did they get these ideas?

[webbles]

6 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

So you're saying that a single human's DNA that was merged with a larger isolated population can be detected in the descendants of that same population's DNA  even after a 1,000 years?  Fascinating.

Oh oh, don't tell anyone at the Maxwell Institute, they'll have to come up with some other apologetic explanation for why we can't seem to find and Lehite DNA in the America's.

You do realize that the only reason they were able to find this is because one woman happened to have unbroken line of female descendants for 1000 years.  The likelihood of that happening is pretty slim.  That's one reason why the scientist are trying to find a more recent reason for how that DNA got to Iceland.  So this doesn't prove or disprove anything dealing with the Book of Mormon.  We don't know what Lehi's DNA looks like and the likelihood of an unbroken male line from Lehi to now is pretty much impossible.

[webbles]

6 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I agree in principle with your assessment.  However genetic science has become ever more precise over the years.  Science now has the capability to detect that iodine droplet in the ocean (to continue my metaphor) in human DNA.  As of yet the only pre Columbian - South American Polynesian DNA detected dates to the 13th century.   If there had been any intermingling before 1200 AD, it would be detected.  The indigenous American DNA detected in the Polynesian population 800 years ago, likely came from a single individual. Yes science can find that DNA iodine droplet. https://www.stanforddaily.com/2020/08/17/study-reveals-contact-between-native-americans-and-polynesians-occurred-800-years-ago/

An interesting quote from that article:

Quote

As of now, it is unclear if Polynesian DNA is present in Native American communities. According to Ioannidis, because the Native American populations were large, “over the centuries with continued interaction between [Native] populations, that small amount of [Polynesian] ancestry would rapidly be spread in the population and become … very hard to detect — I would say impossible.”

Funny how that is the exact same argument most of us are making.  If you have a small population that interacts with a larger group, it becomes very hard to detect, if not impossible.  The reason that the American DNA could be detected in the Polynesian DNA is because the amount of Polynesians was never very large.

Also, the article links to https://orbit.dtu.dk/en/publications/genome-wide-ancestry-patterns-in-rapanui-suggest-pre-european-adm which talks about other possible contacts between Native Americans and Polynesians.  The article you found is about a study that pushed the date back a few hundred years.  But there is enough proof to say that there was multiple contacts between Native Americans and Polynesians before Columbus.

[Fair Dinkum]

26 minutes ago, webbles said:

An interesting quote from that article:

Funny how that is the exact same argument most of us are making.  If you have a small population that interacts with a larger group, it becomes very hard to detect, if not impossible.  The reason that the American DNA could be detected in the Polynesian DNA is because the amount of Polynesians was never very large.

Also, the article links to https://orbit.dtu.dk/en/publications/genome-wide-ancestry-patterns-in-rapanui-suggest-pre-european-adm which talks about other possible contacts between Native Americans and Polynesians.  The article you found is about a study that pushed the date back a few hundred years.  But there is enough proof to say that there was multiple contacts between Native Americans and Polynesians before Columbus.

Only a matter of time...but I agree very difficult to find

[CV75]

4 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Only a matter of time...but I agree very difficult to find

Hope springs eternal , charity suffereth long, and faith land knowledge are virtually the same thing.

Edited September 24, 2021 by CV75

[CV75]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Amulek is correct in stating that we have no direct scriptural link between the Lamanites and the islanders.

But since "Lamanite" often refers to those that remained alive in apostasy after the close of the Book of Mormon, including those descendants of faithful groups who had gone elsewhere throughout its history and were swept up in the universal apostasy, that's as good a term as any.

[webbles]

33 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Only a matter of time...but I agree very difficult to find

It isn't really a matter of time.  DNA can literally disappear.  Your child will contain 50% of your DNA but your grandchild could contain 0% of your DNA (extremely rare).  Add another generation, though, and the probability that your child have none of your DNA gets more probable.  I found https://gcbias.org/2013/11/04/how-much-of-your-genome-do-you-inherit-from-a-particular-ancestor/ which even graphs out how many generations it will take before you will get 0% of DNA from a specific ancestor.  It only took 14 generations.  Lehi is 600BC.  That's hundreds of generations.  The chance that we'll find any of his DNA is extremely slim.  And the more time that passes, the possibility gets even worse

 

The best way to find his DNA would be to find ancient Native American DNA from 600BC to 0AD in the area where the Book of Mormon is expected to take place.  If we have enough DNA from that time period and place, then we might be able to argue over whether Lehi really existed or not.  But until we have that DNA, there's not much science can prove.

 

Edited to add:

Per the article you linked to, the researcher agrees with me on what's the best way to find Lehi's DNA evidence:

Quote

“The only way that we would really be able to see [Polynesian DNA] is with ancient DNA, and you would have to find the bones of a person from this exact specific community near to the time of contact, which would be a really fortunate thing to find,” he added.

 

Edited September 24, 2021 by webbles

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Only problem is that the encounter involved, according to the study, a single encounter/person or small group interaction on one specific island.  So if one accepts that members of that group were Lamanites, then yes those who might depend from that meeting could/would be descendants of Lehi.  But to then take that and leap to included every single in inhabitant of the Pacific and call them all descendants of Lehi based on this one small encounter doesn't seem correct either.

The study was looking at people from 4 islands: Palliser, Marquesas, Mangareva and Rapa Nui.  Rapa Nui is Easter Island and is around 2000 miles from South America.  Mangareva Island is 1600 miles west of Rapa Nui.  Palliser Island is another 900 miles west of Mangareva.  And Marquesas Island is 900 miles north of Mangareva.  Tonga is only 1500 miles from Palliser Islands.  Most likely the only reason they didn't find DNA evidence in Tonga is because they didn't have Tonga DNA samples as part of their study.  But if all 4 of those islands have Native American DNA, then it is extremely likely that most of Polynesia has Native American DNA.

[JustAnAustralian]

7 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I've never made that claim that this alone disproves the Book of Mormon, it merely casts a shadow.

It doesn't even cast a shadow. The main ship of Hagoth initially went to the land northwards, the other ships don't have a destination mentioned, the second journey of the main ship was lost.

There is zero effect on the Book of Mormon as it doesn't make the Polynesian claim. 

Edited September 24, 2021 by JustAnAustralian

[Fair Dinkum]

This is NOT intended to move the goal polls, just an observation but, To get to where we are on this thread we have had to completely ignore parts of what the BoM claims and reinterpret what the Book of Mormon actually says about itself.  Just saying.

 

The entire notion of a small party of Jews merging with an existing population of native Americans is completely at odds with what the book claims and words in the book

We have loads of Ancient Jewish DNA.  It's easy to compare but alias none to be found. in the America's or the Pacific Islands

 

Edited September 24, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[webbles]

8 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Exactly.  Through observation science forms a theory and then rigorously challenges that theory to either prove or disprove its validity as a truth.  Religion does just the opposite.  It starts with the conclusion and then rigorously fights to support that conclusion irrespective of non confirming evidence right up until overwhelming, embarrassingly evident evidence makes it impossible to retain that conclusion.

Science also does that as well.  Take the Theory of Evolution.  The science before hand was pretty conclusive; evolution just couldn't happen.  And people would do studies to disprove evolution up until "overwhelming, embarrassingly evident evidence makes it impossible to retain that conclusion.".  How else do you think science changes direction?  Scientist (and people in general) have their own hobby horses and beliefs.  To change them, it requires an immense amount of evidence.  And in some cases, they won't change.  This has nothing to do with religion vs science.  It is just normal human behavior.

[webbles]

8 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

This is NOT intended to move the goal polls, just an observation but, To get to where we are on this thread we have had to completely ignore parts of what the BoM claims and reinterpret what the Book of Mormon says actually says about itself.  Just saying.

 

The entire notion of a small party of Jews merging with an existing population of native Americans is completely at odds with what the book claims and words in the book

We have loads of Ancient Jewish DNA.  It's easy to compare but alias none to be found. in the America's or the Pacific Islands

 

You should start a new thread then.  Because I think a lot of people on this thread do not believe that the Book of Mormon claims that.  I, personally, don't.

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Here is the link from my OP here in case you would actually like to read the article but to answer your question this research is from last year, 2020.

Thanks, I've already read it. Thoroughly. 

Did the researchers detect any North American DNA, and if not, why not?

Also, on which area of South America did researchers focus their DNA samples and why?

[smac97]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

You should start a new thread then.  Because I think a lot of people on this thread do not believe that the Book of Mormon claims that.  I, personally, don't.

 I don't think it claims that either. And if it does, it would seem to be a pretty simple exercise of pointing to the specific portions of the text that text that include that claim. So…

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

This is NOT intended to move the goal polls, just an observation but, To get to where we are on this thread we have had to completely ignore parts of what the BoM claims and reinterpret what the Book of Mormon actually says about itself.  Just saying.

The entire notion of a small party of Jews merging with an existing population of native Americans is completely at odds with what the book claims and words in the book

We have loads of Ancient Jewish DNA.  It's easy to compare but alias none to be found. in the America's or the Pacific Islands

Please provide the list of those items that must not be completely ignored, why they must be taken solely as scientific observation and fact, and what this has to do with here we are in this thread.

[2BizE]

On 9/23/2021 at 9:34 AM, Raingirl said:

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

Facts are not criticism.

[2BizE]

I was always taught that the Pacific Islanders were descendants of Hagoth, who left in ships, came back for more people and provisions, left and never returned. This was highly taught by Elder Matthew Cowley of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles.  He was a prophet, seer, and revelator.

https://rsc.byu.edu/book-mormon-alma-testimony-word/hagoth-polynesians

 

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

Facts are not criticism.

Unsubstantiated conclusory opinions are not facts.

[webbles]

11 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

I was always taught that the Pacific Islanders were descendants of Hagoth, who left in ships, came back for more people and provisions, left and never returned. This was highly taught by Elder Matthew Cowley of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles.  He was a prophet, seer, and revelator.

https://rsc.byu.edu/book-mormon-alma-testimony-word/hagoth-polynesians

 

Thanks for the link.  I very much agree with the last paragraph:

Quote

In conclusion it seems fair to state that although the Church has no official, published declaration on the origin of the Polynesians, there have been enough semi-official statements by prophets of the Lord to leave little doubt that the Church believes that the Polynesians are direct blood relatives of Lehi’s colony and that Hagoth’s lost ships provide at least one connection between the Americas and Polynesia. This is further supported by patriarchal blessings given to the members of the Church among these people and by oral traditions. The brief account of Hagoth recorded in the book of Alma is important to an understanding of the blessings given to the descendants of Joseph, as the inhabitants of the isles of the sea.

I do believe that Polynesians have the blood of Lehi in them.  I just don't believe that they only contain the blood of Lehi.

[2BizE]

According to LDS teachings and traditions, the Pacific Islanders would also be of Jewish ethnicity.  Are these Jewish genetic markers found among the Maori of New Zealand?

[webbles]

14 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

According to LDS teachings and traditions, the Pacific Islanders would also be of Jewish ethnicity.  Are these Jewish genetic markers found among the Maori of New Zealand?

The likelihood that Jewish markers would last from 600BC to now in the Polynesians is really slim.  I already discussed that in an earlier post.  If you assume that the Lehites did not come into an empty continent but instead were a small group intermingling with a much larger group (which I believe and is how I understand the Book of Mormon), it will be nearly impossible to find any markers from Lehi by now.  You would need ancient DNA from the 600BC to 1AD and you would also need to be looking in the correct location where Lehites would be.