The Second Civil War

[Average Joe]

Because he didn't, we don't know what the angel Moroni told Joseph other than his account (josephs), which did not include outlining who exactly the Lamanites were.

 

We know that they are the descendants of Lehis son, but we most certainly cannot place them on a specific people

 

It is reported that during those years Joseph Smith also received visits from Mormon, Nephi, and other "angels of God unfolding the majesty and glory of the events that should transpire in the last days" (HC 4:537; cf. JD 17:374; Petersen, p. 131). Joseph shared with his family some of his experiences. His mother, Lucy Mack Smith, recalled, "From this time forth, Joseph continued to receive instructions from the Lord, and we continued to get the children together every evening for the purpose of listening while he gave us a relation of the same…. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this  continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them" (pp. 82-83). (emphasis mine [source])

[omegaseamaster75]

It is reported that during those years Joseph Smith also received visits from Mormon, Nephi, and other "angels of God unfolding the majesty and glory of the events that should transpire in the last days" (HC 4:537; cf. JD 17:374; Petersen, p. 131). Joseph shared with his family some of his experiences. His mother, Lucy Mack Smith, recalled, "From this time forth, Joseph continued to receive instructions from the Lord, and we continued to get the children together every evening for the purpose of listening while he gave us a relation of the same…. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this  continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them" (pp. 82-83). (emphasis mine [source])

Dangerous ground.....

 

and while I believe Joseph said those things and that was his interpretation of the various visitations that he received, we most certainly cannot claim it as fact. We must take it on FAITH that these events transpired. When we make the claim to fact we are being set up for disappointment. (emphasis mine)

[The Folk Prophet]

Dangerous ground.....

 

Dangerous? 

 

How?

[Average Joe]

Dangerous ground.....

 

and while I believe Joseph said those things and that was his interpretation of the various visitations that he received, we most certainly cannot claim it as fact. We must take it on FAITH that these events transpired. When we make the claim to fact we are being set up for disappointment. (emphasis mine)

 

If you don't want to believe, don't. I'm sleeping just fine with my beliefs. 

[omegaseamaster75]

Dangerous? 

 

How?

It's a topic for another thread, but since you asked....where are the archeological sites? (please don't point to uncovered sites in central and south America these sites are far to young to be relevant). where are the animal bones? tools, metal work, writings, evidences of those civilizations. etc, etc. We haven't found those things to the utmost conclusion. We most likely won't. We should not make claims that are untrue.

 

We do not need to understand or have a knowledge of BOM geography for it to be true, I read an article that said even if a sign pointing to Zarahemla was found as in "x marks the spot" or "here it is with all the evidence" People would still not believe. I think that this is true.  Look at the city of Jerusalem and historical sites there and yet people still do not believe in Jesus Christ.

 

A true basis for belief only comes through a spiritual witness.

[Average Joe]

Dangerous? 

 

How?

 

It disagrees with his opinion.

[omegaseamaster75]

If you don't want to believe, don't. I'm sleeping just fine with my beliefs. 

When did I say I didn't believe?

[Average Joe]

When did I say I didn't believe?

Don't twist my words to suit your mood. You clearly and repeated stated you didn't believe my statement concerning the Lamanites. You reject whatever evidence is presented genetically or having been spoken prophetically. If you don't believe me or anyone else, by all means enjoy the faith your content with.  

[omegaseamaster75]

Don't twist my words to suit your mood. You clearly and repeated stated you didn't believe my statement concerning the Lamanites. You reject whatever evidence is presented genetically or having been spoken prophetically. If you don't believe me or anyone else, by all means enjoy the faith your content with.  

Not twisting your words you said " you don't want to believe"

 

I sleep like a baby with what I "believe"

[The Folk Prophet]

It's a topic for another thread, but since you asked....where are the archeological sites? (please don't point to uncovered sites in central and south America these sites are far to young to be relevant). where are the animal bones? tools, metal work, writings, evidences of those civilizations. etc, etc. We haven't found those things to the utmost conclusion. We most likely won't. We should not make claims that are untrue.

 

We do not need to understand or have a knowledge of BOM geography for it to be true, I read an article that said even if a sign pointing to Zarahemla was found as in "x marks the spot" or "here it is with all the evidence" People would still not believe. I think that this is true.  Look at the city of Jerusalem and historical sites there and yet people still do not believe in Jesus Christ.

 

A true basis for belief only comes through a spiritual witness.

 

Once more...

 

Dangerous?

 

How?

 

Your answer doesn't address anything dangerous, dangers, or anything like unto dangerosity whatsoever.

[Vort]

This is my point with the genetic mishmash we cannot claim for a certainty that Lehi is the genetic father of the Native American. In theory there can be genetic traces but we can't prove it so why make the statement of fact? Why tie it to prophecy?

 

My point is that we should focus on the doctrine of the book of Mormon and not make absurd statements that we cannot prove.

 

Joseph Smith said an angel gave him the gold plates from which he translated the Book of Mormon by means of seer stones, and that when he was done, the angel took them all back.

 

These statements strike many people as absurd. We cannot prove them. Should we therefore stop making them?

 

There is nothing absurd about stating that Lehi and his sons form part of the ancient ancestry of modern descendants of American aborigines. True, it is not provable by scientific means, but that applies to almost every religious principle. Science cannot prove the law of chastity or that stealing is morally wrong.

[Vort]

 

VORT you are so much smarter than me....

 

Maybe or maybe not, but that's not the point. You are criticizing others for offering unsupported, unprovable statements, while you yourself are throwing out the most unsupportable and specious things of all.

 

If it can't be proven that Lehi not is the  father of the native American peoples, can it be proven that he is?

 

If the Book of Mormon itself is accepted as a true history, then the existence of Lehi's genetics in all (or at least the overwhelming majority of) modern "American Indians" is very highly probable, mathematically speaking.

 

Unlikely, so lets just stop saying that he is.

 

I don't see what the inability of "proving" Lehi's existence has to do with anything. It is not provable, even if you found Hebrew genes in Indians and a sign saying "Welcome to Zarahemla". But if you accept his existence, then his presence as an ancestor of modern American Indians is almost beyond dispute.

 

Why does this bother you so much?

[Vort]

I do not deny that he is 'an' ancestral father, my issue is that Native Americans, and central and south Americans are categorized as the Lamanites as a group when in fact we most certainly cannot prove that they are, and many are not.

 

Omega, I'm not trying to pile on. I sincerely do not understand. Here you concede that Lehi is indeed an ancestor of the American Indians, yet you dispute the use of the term "Lamanite", a family title which applies to all living descendants of Lehi. What gives?

Edited June 4, 2015 by Vort

[Just_A_Guy]

How much European/(Spanish blood) is mixed in with then native populations of central and south America? We in N. America cannot claim exclusivity to European ancestry. Are not they then also Gentiles?

 

By some definitions, yes.  I'm sure you're aware of the vagaries of the way Nephi tends to use terms like "Jews" and "gentiles".  And of course, the thrust of Nephi's--and Jesus Christ's--prophecies about the future of the house of Lehi, have much more to do with people who are "descended" from that line, than with trying to figure out who is and isn't a "gentile".

 

 

In our minds we want to draw conclusions about who the Lamanites are and who they are not as we read the book of Mormon some of these conclusions enter our minds, but we simply do not know the geography of the area of the BoM, population base etc, etc. It is impossible to fit it into our reading of the book and we should hold back from making conclusions about who is and is not a Lamanite or a descendant of Lehi. The reality is that we don't know and we should not run around claiming that we do.

 

Not even if additional scripture, or revelation to modern prophets, confirms such claims? 

 

It's one thing to build inference upon inference to suggest that Moroni never told Joseph anything about where the modern Lamanites were; that Joseph had no idea where any of them were; that he formed the wrong opinion about where they were; that his uncanonized statements reflected that wrong opinion; that canonized revelations received via Smith (D&C 28 and 32, for example) also incorporated that error; and that our canon is somehow wrong in this regard.

 

But the fact that one believes the canon is wrong, does not mean that it simply doesn't exist.

[mdfxdb]

Omega, I'm not trying to pile on. I sincerely do not understand. Here you concede that Lehi is indeed an ancestor of the American Indians, yet you dispute the use of the term "Lamanite", a family title which applies to all living descendants of Lehi. What gives?

the term Lamanite may apply to all living descendants of Lehi.  It can also mean all those remainders in the Americas, which we know to be Native American Indians, and populations of Central and South America who are not descendants of Lehi.  We simply do not know.  

 

To blanket state that the "native Americans" are all descendants of Lehi is a stretch..

[Average Joe]

Not twisting your words you said " you don't want to believe"

 

I sleep like a baby with what I "believe"

 

Have a nice day.   

Edited June 5, 2015 by Average Joe

[Just_A_Guy]

the term Lamanite may apply to all living descendants of Lehi.  It can also mean all those remainders in the Americas, which we know to be Native American Indians, and populations of Central and South America who are not descendants of Lehi.  We simply do not know.  

 

To blanket state that the "native Americans" are all descendants of Lehi is a stretch..

 

Allow myself to quote . . . myself:

 

 

Sincere question here:  Is there anthropological precedent for groups coexisting on a contiguous land mass for two and a half millennia without ever intermarrying?  Can we prove that ancient Egyptians never--not even once--shared genetic material with indigenous Africans who had lived--say--within the boundaries of modern-day Ivory Coast or Botswana?  Can we say that residents of post-Roman Gaul had absolutely no common genetic markers with Assyrians or Mongolians who lived the time of Moses?

[Vort]

To blanket state that the "native Americans" are all descendants of Lehi is a stretch..

 

Can you demonstrate or explain why? On the contrary, it seems mathematically likely that the vast majority of "American Indians" on both continents would have Lehi in their ancestry. What makes you think this is not the case?

[mdfxdb]

Can you demonstrate or explain why? On the contrary, it seems mathematically likely that the vast majority of "American Indians" on both continents would have Lehi in their ancestry. What makes you think this is not the case?

Because there is no cogent case for it.  Depending on where Lehi landed, and if there were other populations there, and depending how far they traveled, one would need to know all of these things to make a blanket statement that Lehi is an ancestor of all / vast majority of American Indians.  

 

If Lehi landed in South America did they cross the Andes?  If Lehi landed in central america did he cross the Andes / isthmus of Panama to go south?  What set of his population went north?  How far north?  If the Nephites went north, and found another civilization, did they mix with them?  What about the Indians in the Northern States/Canada?  

 

Too many geographic barriers/cultural barriers for it to be possible that Lehi is an ancestor of all or the vast majority of Native Americans.  

 

 

 

"After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians."

 

Introduction to the Book of Mormon, emphasis mine.

Edited June 4, 2015 by mdfxdb

[Vort]

 

Because there is no cogent case for it.

 

On the contrary, the cogent case for it has been explained several times on this very thread. Assuming Lehi and his group existed, it is almost a mathematical certainty that he will show up in the ancestry of any given aboriginal American.

 

Depending on where Lehi landed, and if there were other populations there, and depending how far they traveled, one would need to know all of these things to make a blanket statement that Lehi is an ancestor of all / vast majority of American Indians.

 

No, they wouldn't. Primarily, they would need to know that Lehi existed and that he and his descendants lived somewhere in the non-Arctic Americas. Given those conditions, it is almost certain that Lehi is an ancestor of most or all aboriginal Americans.

 

If Lehi landed in South America did they cross the Andes?  If Lehi landed in central america did he cross the Andes / isthmus of Panama to go south?  What set of his population went north?  How far north?  If the Nephites went north, and found another civilization, did they mix with them?  What about the Indians in the Northern States/Canada?

 

It makes no difference if Lehi himself did these things, or even if the majority of his population did. Was there a small group, or even a single individual, that made their/his/her way to foreign lands and produced offspring? Did these offspring spread? You seem to have a model where 100% of the people in a community live and die within 5 miles of their birthplace. Yet individuals break off and move far, far away all the time, as the Book of Mormon itself clearly chronicles.

 

Too many geographic barriers/cultural barriers for it to be possible that Lehi is an ancestor of all or the vast majority of Native Americans.  

 

This is precisely the statement I'm asking you to justify. No hand-waving, please. Just show me the math or the reasoning.

 

"After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians."

 

Introduction to the Book of Mormon, emphasis mine.

 

As Inigo Montoya said: "I don't think that word means what you think it means." Indeed, I agree completely with this sentence in the introduction, which says that the modern American Indians have many ancestors, among them Lehi. This is exactly our point. Lehi is among the ancestors of the American Indian. That does not mean that only some American Indians have him as an ancestor, but that they have other ancestors besides Lehi.

[mdfxdb]

Prior  to about 2007 the introduction to the Book of Mormon said the following "After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians."  emphasis added - mine

 

I don't think that means what you think it means.......are/among, very different words, wonder why they changed it.....hmmmm.....

 

The truth is the happenings in the Book of Mormon had to have happened in a very local area, probably not more than 1,000 square miles.  We know that when Lehi landed wherever he landed that the continent was likely already very populated, and he probably did mix with the locals.... but the Andes are hard to cross, the isthmus of Panama is hard to cross, the desert of the Great Basin is hard to cross.  There were no north/south trade routes in the Americas.  People just did not move very far at all.

[Vort]

You know what, mdfxdb? You seem like a decent person. I believe you're sincere. For some reason, we just are not communicating. I ask questions that you don't answer, though from your perspective, you've probably answered them several times already. In fact, I agree with you about the limited geography (though I would argue that under 1000 square miles is too restrictive -- I would agree that it's probably under 10,000 square miles). I probably agree with you about a lot of things.

 

The idea that a small group's genes would spread out among a population within relatively few generations, 20 or 30, certainly within the 100+ generations since Lehi arrived in the New World, is similar to saying that the atoms in a drop of ink would spread out through a gallon jug of water, even if you had a maze of wax barriers within the jug. Unless some part of the water is completely sealed off from the rest, the influence of that one drop will eventually be felt. That's not to say that every part of that gallon of water derives solely from the drop, but that every part of that gallon of water contains some part of it.

 

But I've generated lots of heat and very little light in this thread, for which I'm sorry. I'll bow out.

[The Folk Prophet]

But I've generated..very little light in this thread

 

Disagree.

[Just_A_Guy]

  We know that when Lehi landed wherever he landed that the continent was likely already very populated, and he probably did mix with the locals.... but the Andes are hard to cross, the isthmus of Panama is hard to cross, the desert of the Great Basin is hard to cross.  There were no north/south trade routes in the Americas.  People just did not move very far at all.

 

Don't anthropologists tell us that the earliest archaeological record of mankind in the Americas consists of a site in Pennsylvania dating to about 12-15,000 years ago, and a site in southern Chile dating to about 14,800 years ago?

 

The implications of that are that, under the Bering Strait theory that is commonly accepted in scientific circles, you apparently have humans migrating from the continental US down to nearly the southern tip of South America over, at most, a 2,800 year period, and without a written language or the possibility of assistance/interactions/intermarriages with pre-established populations. 

 

That being the case, it's highly possible--even probable--that descendants of a group capable of communicating in writing and having very good prospects for assistance/interactions/intermarriages with local populations, starting out at roughly the middle of the continent in Mesoamerica, would be able to overcome those same geographical barriers over a period of roughly 2,400 years and swap genetic material with humans virtually everywhere in the hemisphere that human populations existed--including north into what would become the continental US, and south to the very tip of the continent.  So, in other words, that population would have descendants all over North and South America,  which coincidentally (or not), is precisely--if very, very broadly--where modern scriptures and prophets have indicated that biological descendants of Lehi may be found.

Edited June 4, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Crypto]

It would make for an interesting simulation using what current knowledge we have of past populations and current populations to see how far one individual's (say family of lehi) genes would carry. Then testing if different locations or conditions would make much a difference.

It would probably take a geneticist, and anthropologist to put a model together. An amateur model would still be interesting to see, especially if it had some cool data visualizations.