[Hercules]

Nephite wrote:

Hercules, there could be so many ways that the DNA issue could be resolved. Wait a few years and scientists will realize they’ve been wrong about some aspect of it.

The Malay theory doesn’t hold water to me. The Book of Mormon clearly says that the book itself will come out of the earth in the same land (broadly) where its events took place. 1 Ne. 22:7–8 alone shows that it didn’t take place in Malaysia.

Yup, also Moroni said it was a record of the former inhabitants of THIS continent. Malay theory is a big waste of time IMO.

[Hercules]

Nephite wrote:

I really think the contents of the Book of Mormon itself clearly say that the Lamanites will not become extict and (at least some) will remain on the American continent.

Quote:

And it meaneth that the time cometh that after all the house of Israel have been scattered and confounded, that the Lord God will raise up a mighty nation among the Gentiles, yea, even upon the face of this land; and by them shall our seed be scattered. And after our seed is scattered the Lord God will proceed to do a marvelous work among the Gentiles, which shall be of great worth unto our seed; wherefore, it is likened unto their being nourished by the Gentiles and being carried in their arms and upon their shoulders. (1 Ne. 22:7–

Quote:

And he spake unto them, saying: Behold, my sons and my daughters, who are the sons and the daughters of my second son; behold I leave unto you the same blessing which I left unto the sons and daughters of Laman; wherefore, thou shalt not utterly be destroyed; but in the end thy seed shall be blessed. (2 Nephi 4:9)

Quote:

But behold, I prophesy unto you concerning the last days; concerning the days when the Lord God shall bring these things forth unto the children of men. After my seed and the seed of my brethren shall have dwindled in unbelief, and shall have been smitten by the Gentiles; yea, after the Lord God shall have camped against them round about, and shall have laid siege against them with a mount, and raised forts against them; and after they shall have been brought down low in the dust, even that they are not, yet the words of the righteous shall be written, and the prayers of the faithful shall be heard, and all those who have dwindled in unbelief shall not be forgotten. (2 Nephi 26:14-15)

You’re absolutely right, which means I’m now without an explanation. I guess it was an inspired fiction.

[Hercules]

Ray

The only issue I have with some of your theories is that, as I understand genetics (and I’m not an expert but have read a lot), the markers would still be there no matter how much intermingling took place. They have searched far and wide and they have only found middle eastern DNA dating back 10,000 to 15,000 years ago (which shows how long markers last) but nothing more recent. This is why I can only accept the theory that there were killed off.

[Hercules]

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)

[Hercules]

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?

[Hercules]

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]

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 former inhabitants 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.

[Hercules]

Nephite wrote:

Hercules wrote:

Nephite wrote:

Regarding the DNA issue, has anyone really compared 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]

Old-Timer wrote:

First, I define revelation differently than you do, Hercules, I’m sure.

Second, I said in the part you quoted:

Quote:

some were caretakers (all of them from Jarom to Mosiah, many in the OT, most of them from John Taylor to Spencer W. Kimball)

I would add that we have next to nothing in the NT from anyone but Jesus and John that qualifies as dramatic revelation (and, really, very little from most “prophets” in our canonized scriptures – and even those are highly suspect from purely a logical perspective.

I think tend to see modern prophets in comparison to visionaries like Moses, Joseph Smith, etc. (even the brother of Jared is recorded to have had exactly ONE dramatic vision in the entire record we have of his life) and completely overlook the fact that once the Old Testament ends, with a few obvious exceptions, that type of revelation essentially ceases. I think that’s because the primary definition of revelation changed – and the theological justification would be the replacement of the first two members of the Godhead with the third member of the Godhead as the primary communicator from God to humanity.

Yeah, I can see your point of view. It just makes me reevaluate the 9th article of Faith: “we believe that he will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God”

[Hercules]

Nephite wrote:

Regarding the DNA issue, has anyone really compared DNA samples from various parts of Central and South America to different Jews from various locations?

Yes

[Hercules]

Cadence wrote:

After reading from the post “if BofM is inspired lie, does value and worth increase?” I started wondering exactly what people think about the Book. I am not asking if you think it is true or not, that has been debated for many years. What I am wondering is if you feel something akin to spirituality, or motivation, or something else when you read it. Does it inspire you or do you find it tedious. So setting aside its truth claims what does it mean to you? I guess for this we could try and assume we had never heard of Mormonism, and we found the book on some old bookshelf someplace. The cover and all the introductory pages are missing that explain where it came from. You start reading I Nephi. How would you feel? Would it be so exciting you could not put it down or would you be more like Mark Twain who said it was chloroform in print.

Of course. IMO it is an obviously flawed book but it does invoke something akin to spirituality at the same time. That’s what’s so confusing.

[Hercules]

Old-Timer wrote:

Quote:

“It would be wonderful and SO SO much more easier if I believed President Monson was a “True Prophet”, one that talked to God face to face continuously-not just got revelation-I mean really speaks directly to him day by day. Unfortunately the more I think about it the more I find I can not accept it.”

Honestly, I think the above quote is the heart of the problem, even as I think the overall post is very insightful.

The above definition fits NOBODY within our canon – not even Jesus. Otoh, our scriptures and our modern history give us a pretty clear picture of very unique, different, flawed, “normal” people who filled a role as “prophets” – a role that actually varies in focus and responsibility over time. Some were administrators (Peter, Aaron, Brigham); some were visionary leaders (Abraham, Moses, Lehi, Jesus, Joseph); some were military men (Samson, Joshua, Moroni, Mormon); some were missionaries (Paul, the sons of Mosiah); some were caretakers (all of them from Jarom to Mosiah, many in the OT, most of them from John Taylor to Spencer W. Kimball); some were . . . controversial . . . to say the least (Samson, Jonah, Paul, Brigham);etc.

There are serious issues that have to be confronted when we stop hanging onto infallibility, but I believe we simply MUST stop asking our prophets to be what prophets never have been.

While I agree with your point on prophets being flawed (they certainly were all through the Old Testament), what is your opinion of the fact that there seems to be virtually no revelation anymore (and hasn’t been for a long time)? Well, maybe you disagree with me on that, but if you don’t disagree I’d be interested to hear your thoughts.

I mean at least Joseph, with all his flaws, was doing what prophets do: PROPHESYING…it seems no one else could. Is this why they hardly refer to the President of the Church as the prophet anymore?

Maybe I expect too much, but I don’t see the brethren as being any more inspired than the leader of any other denomination.

[Hercules]

Orson wrote:

Hercules I know you’re new here and I’m looking forward to hearing more about your experiences. I hope you can take this with a sense of humor but sometimes I see the comments of new posters very similar to some of the things teenagers might say. You know the saying “why don’t you leave home and conquer the world while you still know everything.”

Granted we all know there are elements of church history that are not as widely known as the rest, but I don’t think we can agree on what the church really professes to be in fine detail, let alone begin to “prove” definitively whether it is that thing or not.

To me it’s more a matter of “the church is not everything that I always thought it was.” Nobody can argue with my personal expectations, and what it takes to authentically shatter them.

Well, obviously a church can’t think, talk or profess itself to be anything. However, it’s leaders can and have. That’s what I mean when I say “what the church professes to be”. Of course we can just conclude that the leaders were wrong, but then we are just throwing out one of the most central aspects of the Church: modern day revelation. I don’t think inspired leaders could have been wrong so often.

I don’t profess to know. You misunderstand me. I am challenging what people say on these forums. I am not trying to convince anybody of anything. I am trying to see if anyone can come up with a good counter-argument. Hey, if they do I might just go with it.

Orson wrote:

I’ll give you huge props if you are authentic in seeking out other perspectives before setting your ideas in concrete, that to me shows a sincere desire to discover truth. While I may agree that some particular framings of religion may be bogus, to say all religion is bogus makes as much sense to me as saying all schools of thought are bogus. That is because my definition of religion is too broad to toss into one bucket.

Numbers 2 and 3 fit to a degree but I would prefer to say “Still enjoy contemplating concepts of God, and see the LDS church as more than a perfectly valid way to get there; it is the most interesting and challenging way that I know anything about.

My mind still gets twisted around “the church” claiming anything about itself. I understand that statement to say “the church membership” makes claims about what the church is — and different people will claim a whole variety of things about what it is. Don’t take me wrong I understand the general idea is about things the majority of active membership will say, I’m just pointing out how such a broad comment is open to being wrong from several different angles.

I am seeking truth. However, I am starting to fear that I will never find it.

Again, I think you have to seriously think about what claims our inspired leaders have made and what they have taught over the years. I really think it is a cop out to take the position that the ideas proven to be wrong were just assumption made by members.

Cheers

[Hercules]

Old-Timer wrote:

Hercules, I’ll try to respond in more detail when I have extended time, but please resist rejecting someone else’s view by classifying it as “intellectual dishonesty”. That wording is potent and, in this case, 100% incorrect. There is NOTHING dishonest about anything I wrote, and I’ve come to my views after decades of careful reading, intense study and contemplation. For me, it has been a deeply “intellectual” conclusion, frankly.

I respect the view you expressed and even understand completely why you see this as you do. I hope when I have time to write more, you will understand how I came to see this as I do – but be assured there is absolutely no intellectual dishonesty involved.

My apologies. I meant no disrespect. I guess I sometimes get carried away. 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.

Can the book survive all of this? I don’t know. You’re right that the book itself (excluding the title page, introduction, etc.) does not make these claims, which is interesting. However, It’s hard to look past the fact that the Church’s official position for over 150 years has been proven wrong.

[Hercules]

NotSure2008 wrote:

I don’t think there is a thread on this anywhere. If there is I apologise – but I would like to have a further discussion on it. Alcohol, Smoking and Drugs are not the problems here…as I don’t do drugs, don’t smoke and I would rather not drink as I don’t like it and it makes me feel awful! Unfortunately I have a Mum who thinks its unsociable not to drink….grrrr…..The only thing I would ask regarding alcohol – is when it is used in cooking? what are your opinions on this?

Anyway – I love my Tea and not so much Coffee, but do drink it occassionally especially from Starbucks. I don’t really understand the problem behind Tea. I have a member-friend who mentioned to me that it is actually “hot drinks” and because they can damage your taste buds, throat, stomach etc? But wouldn’t this also include Hot Chocolate??

Maybe its being British – but I can see myself struggling to not drink tea.

Your thoughts?

Beer is endorsed by the Word of Wisdom. A mild drink made from barley.

Bruce R. Mcconkie suggested that “Hot Drinks” might refer to the temperature. The heat interferes with the gastric juices. He quoted someone, may have been Talmage. This would rule out hot chocolate and I’m pretty sure some early Church members wouldn’t eat hot soup. This is ludicrous IMO and I am pretty sure the Church stays far away from this position.

There is some interesting research on the fact that the WOW may have really arisen from the fact that tea and coffee were imports that were damaging to the Church’s economy. After all, Studies have shown that moderate amounts of tea and coffee are actually beneficial.

It’s a health code. Do what is healthy. The TR question is “do you live the word of wisdom”, not “do you drink tea?”

Treat your body like a temple and then answer the question in the affirmative. Don’t feel guilty about it. God knows your intentions.

Just my two cents

[Author]

Posts