DiscussMormonism.com

I know this is pretty basic stuff, but am I correct in assuming that the consensus amongst LDS apologists at Maxwell house and FAIR is that Lehi's band intermarried and effected a political takeover of sorts amongst pre-existant Native peoples in mesoamerica?

In a conversation on another interweb forum, someone pointed out this is contradictory to the flood doctrine because the flood would have destroyed the beringian migrators 2-3 millenia before.

I realize the fundamental errors in population numbers and archaelogical evidence for a continuum of settlement and migration present in the americas. But sometimes a very simple illustration such as this is incredibly effective in creating dissonance.

Anyway, just wondering if I remembered the latest FARMS spin correctly. Thanks for your help.

It's not a "spin"..... It's how it's always been with anyone that's "educated" of the Book of Mormon and with a basic grasp of the sciences.

I know because I actually laughed when Thomas Murphy DNA came out. In fact, I laughed in his face when I met him and talked with him about it briefly at the FAIR conference years ago.
First he misrepresents the Book of Mormon and leaders words creating his strawman to tear down.
And he also misuses the DNA.

Educated LDS have long known that natives of the America's were primarily of Asiatic decent.
And we've always read the Book of Mormon and known what it actually says. And we also understand the "context" of most of our leaders words, in contrast to anti-mormon ignorance and misrepresentation.

ldsfaqs wrote:Educated LDS have long known that natives of the America's were primarily of Asiatic decent.

I must have grown up among the uneducated LDS back in the 70s and 80s. They all believed the Native Americans were descended from the Lehites. I'm not sure where they got that idea from, because if they were smart like you, they would have known better.

ldsfaqs wrote:It's not a "spin"..... It's how it's always been with anyone that's "educated" of the Book of Mormon and with a basic grasp of the sciences.

Hang on, have to wipe the coffee out of my keyboard.

This pathetic lie started with Daniel Peterson and has been propagated on this board for years.

The typical apologetic response is that the member is crappy, stupid, uneducated, ignorant. The gospel remains true, even if you don't understand what the apologists have now revealed (even when the leaders of the cult haven't revealed the same thing).

Again, Dr. Shade's dichotomy of the Internet Mormon vs the Chapel Mormon rings true.

The truth, which Mormons will twist to fit their own logic (in order to remain Mormon) is that the North and South American Indians (or native peoples) ARE Lamanites. Joseph Smith said so. The Book of Mormon said so (until recently when it was scrubbed). Only the apologists will tell you otherwise. There is so much evidence on the Internet about how the Cult of Mormonism propagated Joseph's idea of the Lamanites that the apologists can't squirm out of it.

Unbelievable. Apologetics are one thing. Lying? Something else completely. One ought not to sacrifice the truth in the defense of the truth. The contradiction drives people away.

ldsfaqs wrote:It's not a "spin"..... It's how it's always been with anyone that's "educated" of the Book of Mormon and with a basic grasp of the sciences.

I know because I actually laughed when Thomas Murphy DNA came out. In fact, I laughed in his face when I met him and talked with him about it briefly at the FAIR conference years ago.
First he misrepresents the Book of Mormon and leaders words creating his strawman to tear down.
And he also misuses the DNA.

Educated LDS have long known that natives of the America's were primarily of Asiatic decent.
And we've always read the Book of Mormon and known what it actually says. And we also understand the "context" of most of our leaders words, in contrast to anti-mormon ignorance and misrepresentation.

this is flat out wrong.

the teachings of the church are clear about the flood.

to deny the flood, to make up stuff about the lehites, to ignore the church.

that's apostacy right there.

who do YOU listen to "educated LDS" or the prophets when they speak. where your mind goes so goes your heart.

LDSFAQs, thank you for your reply, and the others as well.

I am still unclear regarding the apologetic consensus out of BYU regarding pre-lehite residents in the americas. I have searched the Maxwell Institute site, but I am not good at finding the information there. I have seen the FAIR pages on wiki, but I am unclear on whether or not FAIR is credible to the BYU guys, and exactly how much they are a loose cannon to LDS.

My bishop told me the other night that he doesn't recommend FAIR/Maxwell to doubters. I was a bit baffled by that, and couldn't understand that shift in credibility, and if it came from training he had received.

I would still like to see the latest information on this topic and specifically how apologists get around the flood theory in relation to asiatic settlers.

Thanks for any information!

DarkHelmet wrote:

ldsfaqs wrote:Educated LDS have long known that natives of the America's were primarily of Asiatic decent.

I must have grown up among the uneducated LDS back in the 70s and 80s. They all believed the Native Americans were descended from the Lehites. I'm not sure where they got that idea from, because if they were smart like you, they would have known better.

I must have been in an uneducated ward as well. In the 70s and 80s we thought we were smarter than the rest of the world. The Bearing Straight thing was bunk. We knew that native people came over in boats. They were all descendants of Lehi. We all had a copy of the history and someday the whole world would wake up to it. Everyone would become Mormons and Mormonism would joyously take over the world. But, that was before DNA. :(

The question about the flood is a good one. All the people of Asian descent should have died in the flood. Then Lehi came over. That all works really well until DNA slaps you in the face again.

Patriarchal gripe wrote:

I am still unclear regarding the apologetic consensus out of BYU regarding pre-lehite residents in the americas.

There is no consensus. That is not there purpose. It is to make up as many possibilities as they can and hope members who have doubts can latch onto one of them.

I have searched the Maxwell Institute site, but I am not good at finding the information there. I have seen the FAIR pages on wiki, but I am unclear on whether or not FAIR is credible to the BYU guys, and exactly how much they are a loose cannon to LDS.

Most LDS are not very aware of fair and farms and may see them as apostate if they did.

My bishop told me the other night that he doesn't recommend FAIR/Maxwell to doubters. I was a bit baffled by that, and couldn't understand that shift in credibility, and if it came from training he had received.

I will give credit to fair and farms that they don't just say it's all anti-Mormon lies. Of course this is why it is not a good place for doubters because they end up confirming what the doubter is having problems with and most likely will add a number of new issues to doubt about.

I would still like to see the latest information on this topic and specifically how apologists get around the flood theory in relation to asiatic settlers.

Most believe in a local flood even though current doctrine of the church is a global flood. They believe Lehi joined other groups although many theories exist in the details. It's not supported by LDS doctrine including the Book of Mormon.

Has anyone seen any move away from apologetic venues by their church leaders/teachers? I can only find articles at Maxwell that are vague and speak to general topics. I think the church is finally wising up to the damage that has been done in the past.