Michael_M

Thank you for your reply Hemidakota. It is at times unfortunate that ideas catch on with people. Our modern information age makes it possible for anyone to check things for themselves. We no longer have to rely on only those who really know history. History itself shows that individual alter it for their own agendas.

And extreme caution must be taken to not re-write history at this time. There is a link at FAIR that attempts to state that the LDS ideas of North American Indian, although popular from the earliest days of the church, might not be correct. Such writings as this begin to change the history in the minds of people, and are in contradiction to documents. Mark Hoffman fabricated his own documents in an attempt to alter history. Ideas, which take hold and spread can have the same effect.

My purpose of coming onto this forum was because a poster had stated who the Lamanites were not, which contradicted the words of Prophets. DNA, theories of people already in the western hemisphere before BoM people, etc. are not the issue I am addressing. The problem is when LDS members begin stating who is and isn't, and how these misguided opinions affect living people. Most American Indian patriarchal blessings give a lineage of Manassah, of blood descent. This fact is not bragging rights, or meant to argue a geographical location for the BoM. It is simply a fact. How the blood lines tie back are unknown and not my point. The problem is, when opinions spread that it is only adoption for North American indigenous people, or that they are not really who they are told by prophets and patriarchs that they are. It is not for LDS members to redefine them. The first mission to the Lamanites began in Fayette New York and extended to the western side of the Mississippi river beyond Missouri, with Oliver Cowdery preaching to the Delaware tribe. Joseph Smith also met several times with the Sacs and Fox, and Pottawattamie. Both Joseph and Oliver told these people the same thing, that the Book of Mormon was about their fathers of the past. We cannot let speculation of DNA or a limited geography theory exclude the North American indigenous people. We cannot decide that because others might have already inhabited the hemisphere prior, that we can begin now to decide who is or is not Book of Mormon people. There is not enough information, and no revelation on this matter. Patriarchal blessing lineage given in wording to indicate direct blood lines should never be argued by LDS members that it is only adoption. The issues of bragging rights is another matter, and not the point here.

AngelLynn said: "we have some background that my family was either related or associated with Daniel Boone, but that's another story". There is an incredible amount of information on Berks County PA from the 1700s and 1800s available on Google Book. Tax records, etc from the Pennsylvania Archives can open up things your family might not have found yet. Also for your Cherokee history (or any other tribe), from Google Book, look up the Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, especially beginning with 1838 to 1839. The opening letter describes the start of the removal from the east, and has a considerable amount concerning the Cherokee in this report. These documents through successive years provide information seldom found in as much detail in any books being published today. One of the fascinating aspects of the early LDS Church was that the Indian Removal Act of 1830 was considered by Joseph Smith as a very important part of the gathering. DNA and family lines back to the Book of Mormon can detract us from realizing that many things concerning the "remnant seed" in future context had not occurred yet when the BoM was published. Many people are not accurate in their understanding of the American Indian history, thanks to the movie industry, television and poorly referenced books. Source documents from government reports to congress, senate and the President are startling.

Current enrolled tribal members on reservations who are participating in their cultural do not give much concern to blood levels. It is interesting that the idea of blood quantum level was introduced by the government, and the American Indian has been defined by others from the very beginning of European contact. Traditional people today do not think in terms of having some blood in their ancestoral past, they know who they are and who their family is. It is this group who become harmed by the ideas of some LDS members. Some of those who felt they were lied to by the LDS when DNA studies were published are not necessarily the thoughts of all indigenous people. Some tribes who remember the cranial studies of the 19th century, ethnologist studies, etc. have become quite irritated at non-Indians telling them who they are or are not. I worry that LDS members, meaning well but not understanding, bring harm without realizing it.

See the January 1991 Ensign article by Ludlow. The question of adoption or blood lineage was addressed quite clearly concerning patriarchal blessings. "Who really cares?" The individuals who have been told who they are by Stake Patriarchs. The issue is important to some LDS American Indian, because there are living tribal members who knew survivors of atrocites. The harsh recent history of their people is given a spiritual perspectve through the words of the Book of Mormon. People outside of the blood lineage of the living American Indian cannot personalize these events that did not effect them. The issue of adoption versus blood lineage of patriarchal blessings is a sensitive matter. It has nothing to do with salvation, but it has everything to do with one's identity. Remember that our Savior's words "raising children of Abraham from stones" was directed to the Saducees and Pharisees who witnessed his baptism but refused to be bapized. The rub to an American Indian LDS member is that he or she has brought forth fruits meet for repentance, unlike the Saducees and Pharisees, and now might be told that identity does not matter. They know who they are and it becomes offensive to them to have someone else try to define their identity for them. Just as specific blessings found in the Old Testament apply to those of Ephraim, there are unique promises for those individuals from Book of Mormon people. The living indiginous ones today know the scattering of their people, know what it is to be despised, etc. The promised blessings do matter, because these become part of one's testimony. For these reasons, speculation about who is or isn't, where the landing site of Lehi was, etc. is not as important as living people and their faith.

Even the speculation of migrations from the south to north is just that. Non LDS scholars have argued that the migration went the other direction. In the long run, none of the theories is as important as keeping faith in the scripture and words of Prophets. I think that harm is done, not intentionally, but by putting more interest in theories than concern for living LDS members. Whatever geography model; LGT, hemispheric etc, remember that these ideas attempt to describe people of the past. Today's living are found on in the entire western hemisphere according to conference talks, Ensign ariticles, and pamphlets such as Christ in America.

Abraham said: "I will tel you who the Lamintes are not. They are not the traditional American Indians such as the Navajo, Apache, Crow, Blackfeet, Shosone, etc. It is too complicated to explain but the scholars I read say the same thing." Trying to say who they are not is harmful and hurtful. The tribes named have LDS members who are also enrolled with these tribes. There are 562 recognized tribes in the United States, eligible for Bureau of Indian Affair services. Among all of these are LDS members. Excluding them from being Book of Mormon descendants is very hurtful to those who think of themselves as being the people who the promises are for. Of Royal Blood, Spencer W. Kimball, Ensign July 1971 mentions some of these same tribes as being Lamanite. Are a prophet's words to be discounted by scholars? Opinions and speculation are one thing, but who can or should state that members of the LDS faith are not who they are, as they have been told in scripture, by Prophets and by Stake Patriarchs? This is a very hurtful and harmful thing that is occurring. News reports of the past few years have shown some indigenous people of both North and South America losing their testimonies because of DNA studies. Those who have the faith to not be shaken by science are now facing members of their own faith telling them who they are not, in contradiction to scripture, words of the prophets, official LDS publications and lesson manuals. Please consider these thoughts and the faith of other LDS members who are tribal members. Thank You