Thanksgiving, Indians, and the recent change to the Book of Mormon

[_charity]

Oh dear. Charity, you haven't been listening. That is YOUR big mistake. You can't claim that the Lamanites are the most important ancestor of living Native Americans, when you have yet to prove that Lamanites existed. That would be the first item on your To Do list. In order for them to be an ancestor of people who really DO exist, you have to prove they existed in real life, instead of just in Joseph's fertile imagination.

I don't have to prove they exist any more than I have to prove that God exists. And if you don't believe Lamanites eixst, then isn't it really silly to waste any time arguing about a word change in the intro?

We're stuck in with the Abraham problem again. You can't use a myth to prove anything. First you have to prove that the myth is real. And you haven't. And neither has any other apologist. So please quit expecting people to take you seriously, until you've addressed those issues. ;/quote]

Again, the arguments based on the change in the intro presuppose the reality of Abraham. If you can't get passed that, then bypass the whole issue.

Re: inerrancy
Yes, we do. Well, we pay lip service to errancy, but in reality, we do indeed believe our leaders are inerrant. If you don't think so, please give the last 10 times our leaders admitted publically to making a mistake in a doctrinal matter.

You are going at this the wrong directin. They don't have to admit any error. We just have to realize that they can make errors. And seek our own spiritual confirmation. That is the process.

The Church cannot be held accountable for peole getting wrong ideas.

Wrong again. The church can and indeed should be held accountable for members getting the wrong ideas. That is what correlation is all about.

Okay. Please cite your source on this. Correlation is all about seeing that the same thing is taught. It is not about going around quizzing members about exactly what they think and being sure some numbskull hasn't gotten something wrong. Joseph says we should teach correct principles and let people govern themselves. The correct principles are being taught

IF people are attending their meetings, studying their scriptures and praying. Some twit who shows up in Gospel Doctrine class every quarter, doesn't watch Conference, doesn't' read the Ensign or pray, and then whines about having some silly idea that is shown to be wrong has no footing.

You should read up on diffusionist theory.

Theory being the operative word. Please tell me this isn't another of the times you misuse and abuse a source, because I'm going to have to CFR, and please make sure you connect diffusionist theory to the Book of Mormon. We wouldn't want people to think you were trying to connect apples to plastic, now would we?

Diffusioinism is found in cultural anthropology and covers the area of how ideas, technologies, etc. are spread throughout societies. Of course, the application we would be talking about here is intercontinental diffussion rather than intracontinental diffusion.

You could call Thor Hyerdahl an intercontinental diffusionist with his proof that intercontinental travel was possible prior to the development of the types of sea vessels of the Columbia era.

The following appears on the FARMS website. Please note the fact that non-LDS scholars are involved here as well as LDS.

"Old theories die hard in academia, at least when they are entrenched and have been defended intellectually with fervor. Only with overwhelming evidence to the contrary does the institutional status quo crumble and make way for new theories to find legitimacy within the academic mainstream. Illustrative of this struggle for acceptance in the academy has been the contest between the establishment position that ancient American civilization evolved in complete independence from the Old World and the "cultural diffusion hypothesis." The latter proposes that American societies did not arise and develop in total isolation but were stimulated by connections from the Old World.

For years John L. Sorenson and a non-LDS colleague, Carl L. Johannessen, have been collecting evidence for interhemispheric contact in pre-Columbian times, a matter that readers of the Book of Mormon are quite at home with. Having amassed a veritable boatload of hard evidence, Sorenson and Johannessen (professors emeriti of anthropology at BYU and geography at the University of Oregon, respectively) have published the results of their seminal research under the title "Biological Evidence for Pre-Columbian Transoceanic Voyages." Their technical report is a chapter in an edited volume published this year by the University of Hawai'i Press, Contact and Exchange in the Ancient World.

The report catalogs over 100 species of flora and fauna that were shared by both hemispheres before Columbus's day. The evidence is decisive that those organisms neither crossed the oceans by natural means nor were carried by humans across the Bering Strait. For instance, microbiologists agree that the Asian hookworm parasite found in South American mummies could only have reached the Americas via Asian seafarers, since the parasite, before it enters the human digestive tract, must inhabit warm, moist soil—an impossibility for passage via the cold Bering Strait, leaving human migration by sea the only conceivable alternative. The authors discuss many other compelling case studies as well, concluding that "students of the past must look to a new paradigm of human history and communication."

In the editor's introduction, Victor H. Mair (professor of Chinese language and literature at the University of Pennsylvania) notes that since Sorenson and Johannessen "have relied on a variety of different types of evidence . . . and have themselves exercised scientific caution in making their claims, it will be virtually impossible to dismiss out of hand all of their concrete, detailed case studies. . . . Consequently, the work of Sorenson and Johannessen is one more reason why fair and open-minded investigators will hence-forth have to incorporate pre-Columbian contact in their models for the evolution of civilization in the Americas."

An expanded version of Sorenson and Johannessen's study, entitled "Scientific Evidence for Pre-Columbian Transoceanic Voyages to and from the Americas," can be viewed on the Maxwell Institute Web site (maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu). A less-technical version of this study recently appeared in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies under the title "Ancient Voyages Across the Ocean to America: From 'Impossible' to 'Certain'" (vol. 14, no. 2, 2005)."

The JBMS version is illustrated with terrific photographs.

No, he's [chonguey] teaching them how he views those facts, and showing them how the church has skewed those same facts. To those of us who view LDS church leaders as fallible men who are led by their own personal agendas, it's alright to do that. Only those who see those same leaders as infallible men led by God have distorted concepts surrounding "facts".

If he says, "this is the way I view the facts" or "this is what I think those facts mean" then I would agree with your. But if he says, "this is the way it is" then he is not giving them the truth.

[_charity]

The problem is, you aren't teaching them the truth. You are teaching them a few scientific facts which you have misinterpreted and you are leading them away into error.

What kind of scientist did you say?

And what kind of scientist are you Charity?

I did not make the claim of being a scientist. I have had training in scientific method, and I have a master's degree in psychology. But Chonguey said "I am a scientist." I want to know what kind. If he makes such a claim on the basis of being a homeopath, we ought to know.

It's obvious you are completely ignorant of the science behind man's early migration based on the Out of Africa Theory. You claimed previously in this thread that American Indians have Israelite (read Middle Eastern) lineage? You wrote in another thread the following "The Church still teaches that American Indians are direct blood descedants of Father Lehi.(again read Middle Eastern). Let me repeat you are wrong. If you intend to disagree then present your reasoning and/or your evidence for your claims.

I understand and do not disagree with the land bridge migration theories. I just say that you cannot limit all migrations to those millenia past land migrations. I will tell you as I did Harmony, you need to catch up on diffusionist theories. Things have changed dramatically in the last decade. There has been a lot more intercontinental travel since those ealry people trudged across the Siberian bridge than used to be thought.

[_charity]

CRF - I particularly want to see evidence that these findings are widely accepted among the experts. I'm familiar with some examples such as these that diffusionists offer as evidence of their theory, but whenever I've delved into the details, I discovered that other experts reject the interpretation of the diffusionists. An example is that a couple of "Indologists" claim that maize is depicted in ancient sculptures, while other experts claim that these individuals have erred due to their lack of familiarity with the ancient iconography of the period, and that what they are calling "maize" is really a mythical pearl-fruit (muktaphala). This is an example of what I would consider "questionable" evidence. I know this occurs quite frequently within the Book of Mormon debate, as well, and people who are unfamiliar with Mesoamerican iconography can see "elephants" when macaws or tapirs are being represented.

by the way, I don't reject the diffusionist theory out-of-hand, by the way, I think it's possible. I just want to see how solid your evidence really is.

Check out the reference I posted. Non-LDS scholars have said the the Sorenson-Johannsen material is indisputable.

[_beastie]

Charity,

In quoting your FARMS article, you're telling me something I already know, which is that a handful of scholars with various areas of expertise believe there is evidence for trans-oceanic influence. What I want to know is if their conclusions are widely accepted across their fields. For example, Johannessen is one that has been criticized for drawing conclusions about ancient Indian art without fully understanding that art, and hence, calling the mythological pearl fruit "maize" because that's what it looked like to his less trained eye. How accepted have these theories been, or are they still on the fringe of the science?

If your only source is a FARMs article, you're not going to be able to answer my question, and that's ok, I'm just asking.

[_beastie]

Non-LDS scholars have said the the Sorenson-Johannsen material is indisputable.

Well, you've lost your case right there, because it is definitely disputable, and has been disputed by Indologists. One obvious problem with the theory that muktaphala is really maize is that there should be botanical evidence of the maize, and there isn't.

It's not hard to find evidence showing that this is a disputed claim:

http://www.bio.net/bionet/hypermail/bio ... 27604.html

Someone is overstating their case, and you are repeating what they've asserted without taking the time to dig deeper yourself.

[_harmony]

I don't have to prove they exist any more than I have to prove that God exists. And if you don't believe Lamanites eixst, then isn't it really silly to waste any time arguing about a word change in the intro?

I don't consider asking you to show that a very-likely-nonexistent people existed a waste of time.

You are going at this the wrong directin. They don't have to admit any error. We just have to realize that they can make errors. And seek our own spiritual confirmation. That is the process.

That only works if they're right, charity. When our leaders are wrong, it behooves them to tell the members, so the members know that their lack of confirmation was correct. Kinda like when McConkie made his famous statement, and admitted he'd been wrong. I had a lot of respect for him that day. I have little for our present leaders.

Okay. Please cite your source on this. Correlation is all about seeing that the same thing is taught. It is not about going around quizzing members about exactly what they think and being sure some numbskull hasn't gotten something wrong. Joseph says we should teach correct principles and let people govern themselves. The correct principles are being taught

IF people are attending their meetings, studying their scriptures and praying. Some twit who shows up in Gospel Doctrine class every quarter, doesn't watch Conference, doesn't' read the Ensign or pray, and then whines about having some silly idea that is shown to be wrong has no footing.

I agree; correlation is about seeing that the same things are taught. And since we know that bishops everywhere make sure that no one anywhere ever teaches anything that isn't in the manual, it stands to reason that if incorrect things are taught, it's from the manual. Unless you're saying that bishops aren't doing their job?

Theory being the operative word. Please tell me this isn't another of the times you misuse and abuse a source, because I'm going to have to CFR, and please make sure you connect diffusionist theory to the Book of Mormon. We wouldn't want people to think you were trying to connect apples to plastic, now would we?

Diffusioinism is found in cultural anthropology and covers the area of how ideas, technologies, etc. are spread throughout societies. Of course, the application we would be talking about here is intercontinental diffussion rather than intracontinental diffusion. [snip]

Now would you be so kind as to tie this to the Book of Mormon?

If he says, "this is the way I view the facts" or "this is what I think those facts mean" then I would agree with your. But if he says, "this is the way it is" then he is not giving them the truth.

So now you're going to tell him how to talk to his family? Wow. Chutzpah to the max!

Why should he not say "this is the way it is", if that's what he believes? It's his responsibility to take care of his stewardship in his own way, with his own inspiration, remember?

[Guest]

What kind of scientist, if you don't mind my asking. I think that is pertinent to the discussion.

If you must know I am a computer scientist by training, education and career. But no, its not all that pertinent to the discussion.

Then why did you throw it in. Did you hope we would think your were an anthropologist or molecular biologist and thus has some superior knowledge the rest of us didn't have?

Like all scientists I use the same tools to conduct research and build upon that knowledge: Through the application of the scientific methodologies of observation, theory and critical experimentation and testing.

Then my training counts, too. So don't wave the "scinetist" flag in my face.

Whether or not my training has anything to do with the discussion however is a different matter. With all due respects, as a life long LDS and given my current education, I think my training is perfectly adequate to allow myself to render opinions on issues of Mormonism and the body of scientific knowledge at large. Certainly more so than some self-appointed apologists or critics. ;)

You mean your misinterpretations are more credible than the same misinterpretaiton by a non-member critic? ;)

[Actually, the word was "principle," which may mean a couple of things. Now, you claim that means "most important." Most important how? Certainly not important enough to have been the major contributor to the majority of hereditary lines in native peoples. Even with the apologist-friendly haplogroup X, you are dealing with such small population pools that have X, you could never claim those ancestors made a huge "splash" in the gene pool. It makes them an oddity, a rarity. Certainly not important in a genetic way, or in a way that be-speaks massive reproductive influence.

The word used was "principal" not "principle." And I am not just now saying this. It has always been the fact that the Lamanite heritage was the most important.

It is not a matter of how many ancestors that is what is important. Look at how royalty is determined, for instance. If a person's greatgrandfather was a king, he is considered of royal blood, even if every other person in his line beside the royal is a commoner. So it isn't the number of royals, but that there is one. It only takes ONE.

I agree with you, it isn't the massive reproductive influence. It is the covenant lineage, the promise that was made. All the descendants of the Lamanites were given a promise. And so it is important to a person to have one, and it only takes ONE, (I tend to repeat myself for emphasis) for that promise to be in effect

The only thing it is important to is the Book of Mormon, a 19th century creation and what can be seen as a hypothesis for explaining the origins of the majority of native peoples. It was an important claim 177 years ago when not much was known.

The introduction was not written 177 years ago. You might want to shlve that argument.

But modern understanding has shown that the assumption that Joseph Smith and subsequent leaders is fundamentally wrong. The Book of Mormon can not be the primary explanation for the genesis of the AmerIndians. If the Book of Mormon represents true history, it must be referring to a civilization that, like Beastie said, had little impact on the majority of native peoples in the Americas.

The Book of Mormon never said that it is the primary explanation for the genesis of the Amiercan Indians. If people have exprsesed personal opinions that that is the case, that isn't important. Even if they were very high up in the Church, it was their opinion. A Prophet never said that God told him that all the Indians were only descended from Lamanites.

That is why the introduction was changed from "primary" to "among."

Wrong. Primary never most ancestors on the pedigree chart. It meant most important.

I'm not sure why you are arguing this point. ;)

Which point. My only argument has ever been that the Book of Mormon is the record of an ancient people and their dealing with God. No problem as long as you understand that.

Just because Mormons don't call it inerrancy doesn't mean they don't believe in the exact same concept.

I'm sure you are familiar with the saying "The brethren will never leader the church astray." If you have been in the Church for 47 years, you will have no doubt heard it many times. But it begs the question of what qualifies as "leading the church astray?"

Does teaching and promoting false notions of history qualify as leading the church astray? I would certainly think so.

If anything, the change to the Book of Mormon could be seen by a faithful scholarly LDS as just that: correcting a text prepared by one of the brethren so as to not lead people astray with false notions about the history of the world. The purging of "false doctrine" if you will. All with the help of modern scholarship and scientific inquiry. ;)

What qualifies as 'leading the Church astray" is any doctrine or practice which makes slavation or exalation either more difficult or impossible. That has never happened. And won't happen. The Church does not teach false history. There has been no false doctrine "purged." And modern scholarship and scientific inquiry has done nothing to change the doctrine of the Church. If you think so, show me an example, please.

And are you an apostate scientist?

[_marg]

I did not make the claim of being a scientist. I have had training in scientific method, and I have a master's degree in psychology. But Chonguey said "I am a scientist." I want to know what kind. If he makes such a claim on the basis of being a homeopath, we ought to know.

The problem Charity is that you are making claims which go against science. In order to do so, one should first understand the science they are disagreeing with and then give reasoning why their claims/beliefs conflict. You are the one making claim that American Indians have descended from IMiddle East. I really am not concerned how small the perscentage of American Indians have descended according to you. Since you say you have training in the scientific method, I am asking you what evidence you have to make that claim.

It's obvious you are completely ignorant of the science behind man's early migration based on the Out of Africa Theory. You claimed previously in this thread that American Indians have Israelite (read Middle Eastern) lineage? You wrote in another thread the following "The Church still teaches that American Indians are direct blood descedants of Father Lehi.(again read Middle Eastern). Let me repeat you are wrong. If you intend to disagree then present your reasoning and/or your evidence for your claims.

I understand and do not disagree with the land bridge migration theories. I just say that you cannot limit all migrations to those millenia past land migrations. I will tell you as I did Harmony, you need to catch up on diffusionist theories. Things have changed dramatically in the last decade. There has been a lot more intercontinental travel since those ealry people trudged across the Siberian bridge than used to be thought.

Have you read anything on the Out of Africa theory? Take a look at this link first. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/12/photogalleries/journey_of_man/popup2.html

Groups of people particular those who have kept somewhat isolated from other groups such as American Indians have genetic markers which do not appear in those of Middle Eastern ancestry, markers which science has dated. And vice versa there are markers at particular points in time of those from the Middle East which do not appear in American Indians. So for example scientists might identify one particular marker that occurs in high frequency for Asians or for American Indians indicating they have common ancestry and this marker which they might date 45,000 years ago comes well before all later genetic markers.

If you look at the linked visual you will see there are particular genetic markers labelled, for example M 172 which occurred around 10,000 years ago is common to those from the Middle East. That marker is not common to Asians and American Indians. And then Asian and American Indians will have common markers passed down over the generations dating back 50,000 to 10,000 years ago which can be used to determine migratory routes and ancestry and after particular split offs those markers will not be common to those from the Middle East. Asians and their descendants will not have the marker M172 common to the Middle East.

So not only can the migratory routes be determined but as well the approximate date of the split off can be determined. Hence the evidence indicates that American Indians came to America from Asia but as well at approximate 10,000 years ago with one particular migrating group. If you look at the visual you will see another migrating group.

So I ask you what evidence or reasoning do you have to counter this evidence.[/quote]

[_charity]

Non-LDS scholars have said the the Sorenson-Johannsen material is indisputable.

Well, you've lost your case right there, because it is definitely disputable, and has been disputed by Indologists. One obvious problem with the theory that muktaphala is really maize is that there should be botanical evidence of the maize, and there isn't.

It's not hard to find evidence showing that this is a disputed claim:

http://www.bio.net/bionet/hypermail/bio ... 27604.html

Someone is overstating their case, and you are repeating what they've asserted without taking the time to dig deeper yourself.

Disputed theories eventually usually win out. Think about the geocentrists vs heliocentrists. Or how about the guys who believed for a lot of years that the dinosaurs gradually declined and went extinct, when we all know now that it was over a period of just a few years. The old hidebound theories give away when new discovered show them to be wrong. This is obviously the case here.

Have you read the original catalogue article, nort just the JBMS?

[_harmony]

Did you hope we would think your were an anthropologist or molecular biologist and thus has some superior knowledge the rest of us didn't have?

Actually, that would be The Dude. And you don't listen to him either.

Then my training counts, too. So don't wave the "scinetist" flag in my face.

Oh my. Charity, when you can't even spell scientist, you make us all look bad.

It is not a matter of how many ancestors that is what is important. Look at how royalty is determined, for instance. If a person's greatgrandfather was a king, he is considered of royal blood, even if every other person in his line beside the royal is a commoner. So it isn't the number of royals, but that there is one. It only takes ONE.

Well, then, I've got royal blood. I've got royal blood from several different lines in my veins. What am I doing living in a house in the middle of a farm, instead of in a palace?

A Prophet never said that God told him that all the Indians were only descended from Lamanites.

Only? Who said "only"?

Primary never most ancestors on the pedigree chart. It meant most important.

For someone with a masters degree, you sure struggle with sentence structure.

My only argument has ever been that the Book of Mormon is the record of an ancient people and their dealing with God. No problem as long as you understand that.

Here we go again. *sigh*. An ancient people? Where are their records? Where are their artifacts? Where are their cities? If you posit "ancient", you have to prove it, charity.

What qualifies as 'leading the Church astray" is any doctrine or practice which makes slavation or exalation either more difficult or impossible. That has never happened.

Beg to differ: Adam-God and plural marriage come to mind immediately. So does the racist priesthood ban.