- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Hercules wrote:Nephite wrote:
Regarding the DNA issue, has anyone
reallycompared DNA samples from various parts of Central and South America to different Jews from various locations? Yes
I asked that question because I really didn’t know the answer. I was about to enter freak-out mode and descend into the abyss of internet research, so I am glad Ray posted what he did. I don’t want to have another crisis right now, so I will let the DNA issue go for at least a while.Anyway, any thoughts on my “too complex to be anything but an actual history of real civilizations” post?
Hi Herc! In one post you suggest that the BOM may be inspired fiction. I believe that this is a reasonable assertion. I’m assuming that what you mean by “inspired” is a good book that teaches good principles and also draws people to God and that God may have had some role in bringing it to pass. The next post states the following:
Hercules wrote:I just don’t see how one can characterize what “inspired” leaders have TAUGHT for decades as “assumptions by members.” That was my main issue with what you posted. The only conclusion one could then come to is that the Church leaders receive little to no revelation. I guess this is why no one could get any revelations about Hofmann and simply agreed to pay him off.
Here you seem to use the word “inspired” to mean something else. I see no proof that these church leaders were not generally good men teaching generally good principles, genuinely trying to draw people unto God, and also that God may play some role from time to time in helping to make that happen.
With the church leadership you seem to be using the word “inspired” to mean something more like telling the future or reading minds or miraculously knowing things. I’m not sure if you realized that you were using the same term so differently depending upon the context.
Hercules wrote:Maybe I expect too much, but I don’t see the brethren as being any more inspired than the leader of any other denomination.
One of the cool things is that Mormon theology as I understand it teaches that leaders of other denominations are (or should be) inspired. The LDS church (or any of the incarnations of previous dispensations) never has been the exclusive conduit for God’s dealings with his children. This is a whole other can of worms that doesn’t need to be opened here – but I believe that the members of the Church of the Firstborn will come from all cultures and religions and I believe this to be consistent with church doctrine (if underemphasized).Nephite wrote:Anyway, any thoughts on my “too complex to be anything but an actual history of real civilizations” post?
Hi Shawn!I agree with you that the BOM is amazingly complex – not just in the events and places but in the themes and symbolism and language format (chiasmus etc.) I cannot explain how they got there. It would seem that JS himself did not realize some of the intricacies.
On the other hand it is much more consistent and thoroughly Christ centered than other historical documents covering similar time periods. Some of this might be explained away by stating that Mormon was abridging and leaving out all the confusing chaff and minutia. Also that he had a vision of the future Americas and selected what to include based upon what would be needed in the future (and not any unrelated and antiquated controversies that may have been going on at the time {such as slavery questions or circumcision or the Law of Moses generally}).
So I believe that there is enough evidence to give credence to the theory of actual history of real civilizations, but I cannot say that this would be the only valid interpretation of the information at hand.
Nephite wrote:Hercules wrote:Nephite wrote:Regarding the DNA issue, has anyone
reallycompared DNA samples from various parts of Central and South America to different Jews from various locations? Yes
I asked that question because I really didn’t know the answer. I was about to enter freak-out mode and descend into the abyss of internet research, so I am glad Ray posted what he did. I don’t want to have another crisis right now, so I will let the DNA issue go for at least a while.Anyway, any thoughts on my “too complex to be anything but an actual history of real civilizations” post?
I understood your question that way. I didn’t mean to sound snarky, it was just more simple to answer like that than to post sources (they do exist). The truth is that LDS geneticists have set out to prove the BOM through DNA and have left the church because of it.
The only possibility that i can conceive of in light of this is the limited geography model where they all died and simply aren’t there anymore. Then JS assumed that the people here were Lamanites without ever asking. I have a hard time believing this but I don’t see another explanation that even remotely fits
Hercules wrote:The only possibility that i can conceive of in light of this is the limited geography model where they all died and simply aren’t there anymore. Then JS assumed that the people here were Lamanites without ever asking. I have a hard time believing this but I don’t see another explanation that even remotely fits
Hercules,
Why is this hard to believe? I think the text of the Book of Mormon supports the model that it follows a small group of people and isn’t a continental history. We read in the text that a lot of the historical details are glossed over intentionally. Mormon calls everyone “good” and Nephite and eveyone “bad” a Lamanite, eliminating a lot of interesting anthropological and historical data.
I think the text also supports the idea that not everyone who lived in the Americas was a Lamanite or Nephite. Nephi never says, “I, Nephi looked around the land of promise and realized THERE’S NOBODY HERE.” If his family were the only people on the continent, I think he would have mentioned it. His only frame of reference for inheriting a promised land was from Joshua’s time where the Israelites entered the already inhabited Palestine.
Old-Timer wrote:Frankly, I think the DNA issue is very easy to reconcile intellectually, IF the only conclusions are drawn from the actual book itself and not from what members (including leaders) assumed it says. I’ll try to be concise, but here is the way I read the book itself:
Three groups are detailed, to some degree, in the book. In order of longevity and size:
1) The Jaredites – This group is described as being large at the beginning of their migration – mulitple familes, perhaps an entire “tribe”. If we assume the standard Old Testament chronology, which I don’t assume to be accurate but can use for this purpose, they left their home probably no later than 3,000 BC – which means they were in the “promised land” for roughly 3,000 years when the other two groups arrived. The Book of Ether is quite clear that it covers ONLY the people who remained at or near the government center – and basic population demographics pretty much guarantee that they would have spread widely across whatever land they inhabited. Thus the total annihilation described at the end of the Book of Ether logically could have been only the people who lived close enough to be gathered, leaving many, many, many people still spread out elsewhere.
In looking at the society described, as a former History Teacher, I would place their origin in the Northeast Asian steppe region, meaning their DNA would be consistent with the current research. Thus, it is very plausible that they would be the “principal ancestors” of the Native American Indians – that the primary DNA still extent 2,000 years later would be Asian.
So this is based on the idea that they weren’t all killed off in the final battle? I think the BOM pretty strongly indicates that. You are right about not knowing exactly where they originate, I think.
Old-Timer wrote:2) The people of Mulek – This group was relatively small and occupied a very limited area when discovered by the Nephites (group 3). They were “more numerous” than the Nephites – the third and smallest group. Interestingly, both groups combined were FAR smaller than the Lamanites, which only makes sense if the Lamanites had combined with a more numerous, indigenous people – and if that indigenous people were of Asian descent, it would explain perfectly the “apostate” dsignation and dark skin stigma attached by the Nephites to the Lamanites.
The problem is that mixing with people of Asian heritage wouldn’t remove the genetic markers from the middle east.
Old-Timer wrote:The population and distance clues in the book itself are convincing to me of a limited geography model –
and I reached that conclusion on my own and long before I read any modern arguments for them (and long before I read any DNA research showing Asian origins for the Native American peoples). Thus, I see a very limited geography and a relatively small population (just over a couple of million, tops) destroyed, while a much larger population dominated genetically by “Asians” continued to spread for a total of at least 5,000 years. The limited geography model is, IMO, the only one that can lead to a possible conclusion that the book is actually a historical record.
Old-Timer wrote:That’s what I see when I read the book itself and focus only on what I think it actually says. That means two things very simple things to me:
1) The latest DNA research doesn’t invalidate the claims of the actual book about origins.
2) The latest research shows that the assumptions of the people who believed in the book for a long time were wrong.
I’m OK with the second conclusion.
Fair enough. I think this is the only way to look at it. Apparently Joe never bothered to ask if the people there were actually the remnants of the Lamanites and just assumed it to be the case. After all, Moroni referred to then as the
formerinhabitants of this continent. That could in fact mean that they don’t inhabit it anymore (they’re dead) However Given what the title page says (which was written by a hopeful prophet who didn’t actually know if the Lamanites would survive) it was probably not an unreasonable assumption for Joseph to make.
Earl Parsons wrote:
Hercules,Why is this hard to believe? I think the text of the Book of Mormon supports the model that it follows a small group of people and isn’t a continental history. We read in the text that a lot of the historical details are glossed over intentionally. Mormon calls everyone “good” and Nephite and eveyone “bad” a Lamanite, eliminating a lot of interesting anthropological and historical data.
I think the text also supports the idea that not everyone who lived in the Americas was a Lamanite or Nephite. Nephi never says, “I, Nephi looked around the land of promise and realized THERE’S NOBODY HERE.” If his family were the only people on the continent, I think he would have mentioned it. His only frame of reference for inheriting a promised land was from Joshua’s time where the Israelites entered the already inhabited Palestine.
Given the sheer numbers if the population and the fact that the BOM says the covered all the land, I still find it hard to believe. IF there were others wouldn’t he have written about it?
Also, 2nd Nephi 2:7-8
8 And behold, it is wisdom that
this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance. 9 Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land;
and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever. I think the implication is pretty clear.
Again, not saying impossible. just hard to believe.
Hercules wrote:I understood your question that way. I didn’t mean to sound snarky, it was just more simple to answer like that than to post sources (they do exist). The truth is that LDS geneticists have set out to prove the BOM through DNA and have left the church because of it.
All is well. I didn’t think you were being snarky.Earl Parsons wrote:Roy wrote:The only possibility that i can conceive of in light of this is the limited geography model where they all died and simply aren’t there anymore. Then JS assumed that the people here were Lamanites without ever asking. I have a hard time believing this but I don’t see another explanation that even remotely fits
Earl, somehow you have Roy in there, but you actually quoted Hercules???[This is Ray. I fixed that citation.]
Wait a minute. Is anyone here saying it may be that ALL Nephites and Lamanites died? That would be a problem because the Book of Mormon says mutiple times that the Lamanites will survive. Nephite wrote:Wait a minute. Is anyone here saying it may be that ALL Nephites and Lamanites died? That would be a problem because the Book of Mormon says mutiple times that the Lamanites will survive.
Maybe some left on a boat (we know Nephites did, maybe Lamanites did too). But in order to get around the DNA problem I don’t see how one can claim they survived and remained there…
Are you sure that the BOM says that or is it wishful thinking on Mormon’s (or Moroni’s, or both) part?
No, Shawn, what I’m saying is that the book itself says quite explicitly, I believe, that the two great annihilations described in it (the “Nephites” – NOT a genetic designation, imo – and the Jaredites) were NOT all-encompassing but only included those who could be gathered to the central government locations to wage the final battles. There are pretty explicit statements that support this view with regard to the Nephites, and common sense demographics insist on it in the case of the Jaredites.
So, in summary, I believe the Lamanites weren’t purely of Middle Eastern descent very early in their history – that they integrated with a much larger, darker-skinned indigenous group early in their history – that after the disintegration of the Nephite nation around 200 AD genetic heritage had nothing to do with the terms “Nephite” and “Lamanite” and, instead, those terms refered only to the perceived righteousness and religious beliefs of the two groups (like “Jew” and “Gentile”) – that the Jaredite “nation” was different than all the descendants of the original Jaredite group (think of all the “Southerners” and “Northeners” who weren’t involved in any way in the American Civil War, or all of the refugees from war-torn African countries who survive “complete genocide” by leaving the fighting as others stayed and fought, etc.) – and that Joseph seems not to have studied the Book of Mormon critically to understand intellectually what it actually said from a “historical” perspective. Thus, he and others took the very bare-boned summary he received and extrapoplated assumptions from it that weren’t and aren’t in the book itself.
BTW, there is no evidence of any kind whatsoever that the Israelites ever lived in Egypt or that the Exodus ever occuured as described in the Bible. That doesn’t mean they never happened – but there is no evidence of any of it.
One more thing, and it actually is important to me, from a strictly historical, analytical standpoint:
We have absolutely no idea about Sariah’s genetic heritage. We make assumptions, based on being married to an Israelite (NOT a Jew), but she easily could have been Egyptian, given Lehi’s obvious familiarity with and connection to Egypt. Thus, we really don’t even know fully what maternal genetic markers would exist for the Nephites and Lamanites.
Take a relatively small group of people, intermingle them with a much larger group of people, kill off a huge percentage of the descendants of the original, small group, add in another 2,000 years of intermingling and, finally, acknowledge that we have very little clue about where the actual events surrounding the main part of the narrative actually happened (meaning we have absolutely no clue if the vast majority of Native American Indians would have any trace of “Lehite” genetic heritage) and that the original Jaredite descendants might have been far more widespread than used to be believed . . .
When you look at the big picture of what the book actually says, I don’t believe genetic markers should exist in the vast majority of Native American Indians that would tie them to the Middle East. Again, I think that’s an example of incorrect assumptions by Joseph and subsequent leaders.
Quote:Given the sheer numbers if the population and the fact that the BOM says the covered all the land, I still find it hard to believe.
Histories of all kinds are full of hyperbole and partial observations.
How many people here (and lots of other “believers”) really believe that Caesar taxed all the world – or that Noah’s flood really covered all the earth? I can accept easily that all of Caesar’s world was taxed – and all of Noah’s world was flooded. I have no problem with those statements, since I don’t have to take them to an extreme that isn’t required to be consistent with how such stories typically were and still are written.
Quote:IF there were others wouldn’t he have written about it?
not if he lived his life in a relatively small geogrphic area and hadn’t seen any others – or if he DID write about the “others” when he wrote about the Lamanites without distinguishing them from the descendants of the Jaredites with whom they intermingled. Historians overlook “minority groups” in their writings all the time – even when those groups actually outnumber the ruling “majority groups”, especially if their main focus has nothing to do with precise genetic differentiation.
Finally, Hercules, I’m not sure what part of the Title Page is causing your concern – which part you reference as being difficult to accept. Would you mind quoting the part you mean? Old-Timer wrote:Finally, Hercules, I’m not sure what part of the Title Page is causing your concern – which part you reference as being difficult to accept. Would you mind quoting the part you mean?
I actually have no problem with the title page, which was included on the plates (not added by Joseph). It says that is is written to the Lamanites, but doesn’t sat they will read it. Mormon and Moroni were hopeful that would happen and wrote directly to them but there is no evidence they ever knew it would happen.
It also says that the Lamanites are a remnant of the house of Israel, but again doesn’t say that they survived until the Europeans came.
My problem is with the Introduction, where is used to say that the people in the BOM “were destroyed, except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.”
Now, the BOM itself does not say this. That is an important point.
Therefore the only theory that I can possibly accept is that:
1) Mormon and Moroni were hopeful that the Lamanites would survive and someday read the BOM and be converted but God never confirmed that. They wrote the BOM in that tone anyway;
2) The Lamanites kept warring and killed each other other off shortly after the extinction of the Nephites (or they met up with Asians and were annihilated);
3) Joseph Smith never asked the Lord if the Native Americans were in fact Lamanites and many Church leaders simply assumed it to be the case.
Given the DNA Evidence I can’t see another explanation. Haplogroup X is simply too old. So old in fact that it casts doubt on the creation story (which I have seen as allegorical for a long time anyway)
Your #3 is how I see it – and I see that as relative to more of the assumptions than just that one.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.