I asked the Artificial Intelligence platform ChatGPT a simple question.

[CV75]

11 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

My parents were friends with Pueblo elder Eugene Naranjo who was also branch president of the Santa Clara Pueblo. While he did not reveal sacred kiva ceremonies, he stated that there were striking similarities with temple ordinances.

The Pueblo creation story is similar to the Navajo story.

He also told of a man named Clemente who visited his family periodically and taught them sacred concepts related to the gospel. Eugene was a rock of faith. 

When I joined the Church in college, my branch president (an anthropology professor) was the only white man ever ritually inducted into the area's indigenous people. He had many interesting oral traditions to share about their origins, "trickster" tales and other mythology. It seemed incredibly detailed and complicated to me; no parallels with Genesis that he mentioned or that I could ascertain. 

[Bernard Gui]

Duplicate

Edited January 22, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[Emily]

16 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

He argues against the Bering Strait theory and other Western scientific intrusions into Native American lives and beliefs.

I'm sorry, maybe I'm reading this wrong. And I should probably read the book rather than react to a quick summary...but it sounds silly to me. Scientific theories for how things happened are not "Western intrusions." They are scientific theories.

Some Asiatic people migrated into the Americas at some point, this we know for a fact. Thus far, a land bridge during the Ice Age is the best explanation we've got for how they got here. I'm not sure what the point would be for arguing against the Bering Strait theory, unless the author has come up with an equally scientific, but better, explanation for how they got here. I'm open to a better alternative theory. Does he have one?

If he's arguing that we should simply accept a Native American origin myth for how these unequivocally Asiatic people got here, I have to ask "which of the several hundred Native American origin myths do we accept?" And how is that myth backed up, scientifically?

(Lest anyone think I'm somehow biased against Native American myths, I don't read Genesis looking for scientific explanations either.)

If the book simply argues against the "Only Bering Strait" model of migration, then that's fine. That particular model probably won't survive another generation of textbooks. There's too much evidence against a single origin theory, not the least of which is DNA evidence which indicates that Native Americans are not a singular ethnic group arising from a single part of the world.

I'm rather hoping that the weird notion that the Book of Mormon text argues FOR a single ethnic origin for all Native Americans will also gasp it's last dying breath very soon as well. I honestly don't understand where the idea that "every Indian is a descendent of Lehi and only a descendent of Lehi" ever got started in the church, much less how it became so prevalent.  By sheer head counts alone it's pretty clear Nephi and Laman and their families were mixing it up with the natives from the minute they stepped on dry land. Then the book goes on to talk about ethnically diverse groups of people living in the immediate area, invading from other areas, and being brought over by the hand of God.

But even if readers were missing the clues in the text up to the 1950s, the "All Lamanites Descended from Lehi and only Lehi" myth should have died when Hugh Nibley's "Approach to the Book of Mormon" wended it's way through the church as a priesthood manual. Did 1950s men simply not listen in class? Weren't at least a few of the 1950s women reading their husband's priesthood manuals? (I know I read both my dad's and my husband's manuals until they took all the fun out of it by combining everything together.) 😝

 

 

[Bernard Gui]

33 minutes ago, CV75 said:

When I joined the Church in college, my branch president (an anthropology professor) was the only white man ever ritually inducted into the area's indigenous people. He had many interesting oral traditions to share about their origins, "trickster" tales and other mythology. It seemed incredibly detailed and complicated to me; no parallels with Genesis that he mentioned or that I could ascertain. 

DeLoria doesn’t like white anthropology professors. 😉

He has a joke about the average NA family…mom, dad, kids, an anthropologist, 2 social workers,  a Christian missionary, someone from the Bureau of Indian Affairs…….

Edited January 23, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[CV75]

7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

DeLoria doesn’t like white anthropology professors. 😉

He has a joke about the average NA family…mom, dad, kids, an anthropologist, 2 social workers, someone from the Bureau of Indian Affairs…….

Apparently this one wasn't a "true" white anthropology professor.

[Emily]

5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

DeLoria doesn’t like white anthropology professors. 😉

Probably not the ideal people to interpret Native American history. But better white anthropologists than no one at all taking an interest. Without someone looking and preserving, we would lose even more than has already been lost. As long as the data is intact, Native American Anthropologists can always go back and look at it again and bring out their own interpretations.

 

 

 

[Bernard Gui]

28 minutes ago, Emily said:

I'm sorry, maybe I'm reading this wrong. And I should probably read the book rather than react to a quick summary...but it sounds silly to me. Scientific theories for how things happened are not "Western intrusions." They are scientific theories.

Some Asiatic people migrated into the Americas at some point, this we know for a fact. Thus far, a land bridge during the Ice Age is the best explanation we've got for how they got here. I'm not sure what the point would be for arguing against the Bering Strait theory, unless the author has come up with an equally scientific, but better, explanation for how they got here. I'm open to a better alternative theory. Does he have one?

If he's arguing that we should simply accept a Native American origin myth for how these unequivocally Asiatic people got here, I have to ask "which of the several hundred Native American origin myths do we accept?" And how is that myth backed up, scientifically?

(Lest anyone think I'm somehow biased against Native American myths, I don't read Genesis looking for scientific explanations either.)

If the book simply argues against the "Only Bering Strait" model of migration, then that's fine. That particular model probably won't survive another generation of textbooks. There's too much evidence against a single origin theory, not the least of which is DNA evidence which indicates that Native Americans are not a singular ethnic group arising from a single part of the world.

I'm rather hoping that the weird notion that the Book of Mormon text argues FOR a single ethnic origin for all Native Americans will also gasp it's last dying breath very soon as well. I honestly don't understand where the idea that "every Indian is a descendent of Lehi and only a descendent of Lehi" ever got started in the church, much less how it became so prevalent.  By sheer head counts alone it's pretty clear Nephi and Laman and their families were mixing it up with the natives from the minute they stepped on dry land. Then the book goes on to talk about ethnically diverse groups of people living in the immediate area, invading from other areas, and being brought over by the hand of God.

But even if readers were missing the clues in the text up to the 1950s, the "All Lamanites Descended from Lehi and only Lehi" myth should have died when Hugh Nibley's "Approach to the Book of Mormon" wended it's way through the church as a priesthood manual. Did 1950s men simply not listen in class? Weren't at least a few of the 1950s women reading their husband's priesthood manuals? (I know I read both my dad's and my husband's manuals until they took all the fun out of it by combining everything together.) 😝

Yes, it would be best to read the book. Nibley has been my hero starting around 1968 when I read all of his Improvement Era articles in our mission office. Since then I have tried to stay strictly within the text of the BoM. The two-continent approach that we taught in our discussions was one of the first things to go. One thing of interest to me is the dearth of BoM words that were commonly associated with Native Americans during the early 1800s…canoe, drums, songs and chants, teepee, wolf, warrior, counting coup, warrior, eagle, beaver, wampum, tomahawk, corn, tobacco, chief, copper or bronze skin color, feathers, etc.

DeLoria was no slouch. He is highly respected. One of his missions was to restore, defend, and preserve tribal language and knowledge, much of which he says was unjustly lost Western scientific practices. The same goals are being set by the Puyallup tribe in Washington where we used to live. An LDS friend on the tribal council is in the forefront of their restoration.

I thoroughly recommend his books to discover a different approach to Native American history and religion.

[Bernard Gui]

22 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Apparently this one wasn't a "true" white anthropology professor.

You mean like our good buddies Simon Southerton and Tom Murphy?

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Apparently this one wasn't a "true" white anthropology professor.

Do you remember his name? I’m not implying a slur, but some scholars make such things up. Just wondering.

Edited January 23, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[CV75]

32 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

You mean like our good buddies Simon Southerton and Tom Murphy?

The fellow I knew (mid-1970s) studied cultural factors with an eye toward reducing the incidence of diabetes in this population. Today what he did would be addressing "social determinants of health." I don't know who these guys are, so I Googled them; my guy didn't make any claims about our beliefs. I notice one is a botanical geneticist (as an undergraduate I had narrowed my interests, and was able to take courses, in this area of study), which reminded me that I was introduced to one of this same group's medicine men (also a member of our Church), who wanted me to help him with a book he was writing on medicinal herbs. When he realized I was going to serve a mission after graduation, he encouraged me to focus on making money for that that since there was no money in what he was asking me to do.

30 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Do you remember his name? I’m not making a slur, but some scholars make such things up. Just wondering.

I'll PM you with a link on condition you maintain my anonymity! Same with the medicine man, if I can find him. 

[mfbukowski]

On 1/20/2023 at 4:24 PM, Craig Speechly said:

Confirmation that members of the church remain a fringe group

This is old news and is not Doctrine anymore if it ever was canonized.

[Hamba Tuhan]

On 1/21/2023 at 4:09 PM, Bernard Gui said:

Which Heritage? Do Native Americans believe they came from Asia across the Bering Straits?

As a favour to a friend (and former colleague), I taught for one term in a tribal charter school in the American West whilst the regular teacher was on maternity leave.

I came into class one day, and someone had written on the table, 'All whites go back to Europe! All blacks go back to Africa!' At the end of the day, I appended, 'All Indians go back to Asia?' That resulted in an interesting discussion the next morning -- which had been my intention. Not one of my students accepted an Asian origin for their ancestors, and in fact they angrily resented it. They use the term 'Native American' to refer not just to birth but to origins.

[Pyreaux]

2 hours ago, Emily said:

Scientific theories for how things happened are not "Western intrusions." They are scientific theories.

Some Asiatic people migrated into the Americas at some point, this we know for a fact. Thus far, a land bridge during the Ice Age is the best explanation we've got for how they got here. I'm not sure what the point would be for arguing against the Bering Strait theory, unless the author has come up with an equally scientific, but better, explanation for how they got here. I'm open to a better alternative theory. Does he have one?

If he's arguing that we should simply accept a Native American origin myth for how these unequivocally Asiatic people got here, I have to ask "which of the several hundred Native American origin myths do we accept?" And how is that myth backed up, scientifically?

(Lest anyone think I'm somehow biased against Native American myths, I don't read Genesis looking for scientific explanations either.)

If the book simply argues against the "Only Bering Strait" model of migration, then that's fine. That particular model probably won't survive another generation of textbooks. There's too much evidence against a single origin theory, not the least of which is DNA evidence which indicates that Native Americans are not a singular ethnic group arising from a single part of the world.

I'm rather hoping that the weird notion that the Book of Mormon text argues FOR a single ethnic origin for all Native Americans will also gasp it's last dying breath very soon as well. I honestly don't understand where the idea that "every Indian is a descendent of Lehi and only a descendent of Lehi" ever got started in the church, much less how it became so prevalent.  By sheer head counts alone it's pretty clear Nephi and Laman and their families were mixing it up with the natives from the minute they stepped on dry land. Then the book goes on to talk about ethnically diverse groups of people living in the immediate area, invading from other areas, and being brought over by the hand of God.

All Scientists have a degree of bias because they are dependent on funding by special interest groups, and they fear the political hailstorm of discovering anything that could suggest that any or all Native structures and achievements were done by other people, particularly white people, and give the hated "fringe" scientists that push that "racist" narrative of pre-Columbus transoceanic travel and diffusionism any credence. There are a bunch of myths from the Aztecs to the Navajo that say their ancestors came to where they were by boat, and none claim they crossed a frozen area from the north. There are ancient Chinese fleet ship anchors in the waters off the Californian coast. Chile was settled long before anyone came over the Bering Strait, so they must have come by boat. The Cocaine Mummies show there was a massive world-wide transoceanic trade from Egypt to South America. There is clear evidence of transoceanic diffusion by non-Siberian people, like the discovery of the transoceanic Kennewick Man, they reburied him, because it was too hot politically. Florida’s Windover Bog Mummies are carbon dated 7000 years old, and they were very white and wearing plaid fabric. It's been over a decade, and they still don't talk about these things when they talk about how Native Americans got here.

Edited January 23, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Hamba Tuhan]

24 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Florida’s Windover Bog Mummies are carbon dated 7000 years old, and they were very white ...

CFR, please. I'm not finding this in any of the academic literature I've just consulted.

[nuclearfuels]

On 1/20/2023 at 7:24 PM, Craig Speechly said:

The claim that Native Americans are descended from Israelites is a controversial and fringe theory that is not supported by mainstream.

Confirmation that members of the church remain a fringe group

 

Welcome to the brotherhood of Conspiracy Theorists, my friend!

We also do crazy things like take vitamins.

[Emily]

3 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

All Scientists have a degree of bias because they are dependent on funding by special interest groups, and they fear the political hailstorm of discovering anything that could suggest that any or all Native structures and achievements were done by other people, particularly white people, and give the hated pseudo-scientists push that narrative any credence. There are a bunch of myths from the Aztecs to the Navajo that their ancestors came by boat, and none claim they over a frozen area from the north. There are ancient Chinese fleet ship anchors in the waters off the Californian coast. Chile was settled long before anyone came over the Bering Strait, so must have come by boat. The Cocaine Mummies show there was a massive world-wide trade from Egypt to South America. There is clear evidence of transoceanic diffusion by non-Siberian people, like the discovery of the transoceanic Kennewick Man, they reburied him, because it was too hot politically. Florida’s Windover Bog Mummies are carbon dated 7000 years old, and they were very white and wearing plaid fabric. It's been over a decade, and they still don't talk about that when they talk about the Native Americans.

None of that negates the plausibility of the theory that groups of people from Asia came across the Bering Strait, settled in America and spread their DNA across the continent.

Nor does the plausibility of the Bering Strait theory negate the possibility that other migrations also occurred. 

But I have to disagree. It is not cultural bias or political pressure that's been the major driving force behind the Bering Strait theory being the only generally accepted belief. It's skepticism over the ability of large passenger ships to survive the ocean without the engineering know-how of the 1400s.

Yes, cultural bias can skew interpretation of data. Scientists are human too. Lack of funding can prevent some theories from being pursued.  But right now, most researchers simply don't think you can move large numbers of people across an ocean with ancient ships intended for fishing near shorelines, or skipping from one island to another.

Which isn't to say researchers in the field aren't willing to concede the possibility of handfuls of migrants surviving a trip long enough to get to shore. They kind of have to concede other contact, because Native Americans have enough diversity amongst themselves to point to a richer DNA heritage than simply "all Eastern Asia." But that doesn't mean anyone is picturing large groups of people migrating to America by boat in ancient times.

None of the small migrations (including Lehi's family) would have contained enough people to build the kind of populations that were present on the continent by the 1400s. It takes a lot of people to make a lot of people, particularly in ancient times. Boats just won't carry enough people.

Even the widely acknowledged Vikings, who we know for certain not only made it here, but made it back to Iceland as well -- their DNA just gets lost in the Asiatic mix. 

And that's okay. Because the Bering Strait theory is no threat to the historicity of the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon tells the story of Lehi's group, the Mulekites, and the Jaredites. All small groups of people that landed on the American continent, integrated with the natives, then over a course of time, lost their political identity. These stories fit just fine into the known historical record.

I am aware that there are members who think Lehi landed on a vacant continent and his family multiplied sufficiently over the next 1,000 years to spread not only from sea to shining sea, but also polar cap to polar cap. There is really no polite way to say this, so I will just say it. They are wrong and they are the ones who need to rethink their preconceived notions.

Edited January 23, 2023 by Emily

[Tacenda]

10 minutes ago, Emily said:

None of that negates the plausibility of the theory that groups of people from Asia came across the Bering Strait, settled in America and spread their DNA across the continent.

Nor does the plausibility of the Bering Strait theory negate the possibility that other migrations also occurred. 

But I have to disagree. It is not cultural bias or political pressure that's been the major driving force behind the Bering Strait theory being the only generally accepted belief. It's skepticism over the ability of ships to survive the ocean without the engineering know-how of the 1400s.

Yes, cultural bias can skew interpretation of data. Scientists are human too. Lack of funding can prevent some theories from being pursued.  But I tend to think preconceived notions are the real killers of scientific innovation and discovery. Right now, most researchers don't think you can move large numbers of people across an ocean with ancient ships intended for fishing near shorelines, or skipping from one island to another.

Which isn't to say researchers in the field aren't willing to concede the possibility of handfuls of migrants surviving a trip long enough to get to shore. None of these small groups (including Lehi's family) would have contained enough people to build the kind of populations that were present on the continent by the 1400s. It takes a lot of people to make a lot of people, particularly in ancient times. Boats just won't carry enough people.

Even the widely acknowledged Vikings, who we know for certain not only made it here, but made it back to Iceland as well -- had very little genetic impact on the native populations as a whole. 

Regular merchant runs are more problematic when theorizing the possibility of ancient ocean trade, but not impossible. But again, not enough people could be transported on merchant ships to account for the native population. 

And that's okay. Because the Bering Strait theory is no threat to the historicity of the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon tells the story of Lehi's group, the Mulekites, and the Jaredites. All small groups of people that landed on the American continent, integrated with the natives, then over a course of time, lost their political identity. 

I am aware that there are members who think Lehi landed on a vacant continent and his family multiplied sufficiently over the next 1,000 years to spread not only from sea to shining sea, but also polar cap to polar cap. There is really no polite way to say this, so I will just say it. They are wrong and they are the ones who need to rethink their preconceived notions.

Thanks for being here!

[Pyreaux]

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

CFR, please. I'm not finding this in any of the academic literature I've just consulted.

There were also Redheaded white people living in Ancient Asia, they uncovered the mummies buried inside the pyramids in China and covered back over by the suddenly disinterested Chinese Government. 

 

Edited January 23, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Emily]

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

'All whites go back to Europe! All blacks go back to Africa!' At the end of the day, I appended, 'All Indians go back to Asia?' That resulted in an interesting discussion the next morning -- which had been my intention. Not one of my students accepted an Asian origin for their ancestors, and in fact they angrily resented it. They use the term 'Native American' to refer not just to birth but to origins.

That's pretty funny. 

Those students need to get their DNA tested. They'll probably find out they need to go back to Africa and Europe as well as Asia, various percentages of themselves flung all over the world. Humans are a transient bunch.

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

13 minutes ago, Emily said:

Those students need to get their DNA tested.

I don't think they were interested in DNA ...

[Hamba Tuhan]

31 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

I'm not getting any references out of this undated, unattributed, unreferenced YouTube link ...

[Pyreaux]

20 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm not getting any references out of this undated, unattributed, unreferenced YouTube link ...

Yeah, it's an old Science Channel program, it was discovered back in 1982, studied by Glen Doran and David ****el, archeologists from Florida State University (FSU).

Let's see, ah, everyone's favorite academic reference Wikipedia

Edited January 23, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Florida’s Windover Bog Mummies are carbon dated 7000 years old, and they were very white and wearing plaid fabric.

CFR on this given what the wiki has to say…sounds like your info may have been out of date.  According to the comments below your program, they hadn’t found usable DNA yet or were ignoring the find since I don’t know the date of the program (the DNA was found in 1994 iirc).

Quote

The DNA indicated Asian origin, similar to that of the four other major haplotypes of Native American peoples, and a relatively rare haplogroup, X.^{[20][page needed]} The DNA also indicated that one family had used this grave site for over a century.^[9]

If you like video…this is from 2006 and may also be out of date.  I believe the previous one is from 2003.

 

 

Edited January 23, 2023 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

CFR on this given what the wiki has to say…sounds like your info may have been out of date.

And the Orange County Regional History Centre has this:

Quote

While researchers have determined that DNA did survive in the brain tissue, the samples are still extremely fragile. Instead, an analysis of DNA extracted from the skeletal remains has yielded the most interesting results. Conducted decades after the excavation, the study revealed that the people buried at Windover migrated to North America from Asia but are not related to any living Native American tribes or to any other known prehistoric peoples. This leaves one of two possibilities: either their descendants died out, or their population bottle-necked (was reduced sharply) before the genetic markers we find in modern humans evolved.

 

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

And the Orange County Regional History Centre has this:

 

That is a very interesting tidbit.