Who Are Indians Really?

[_Brent Metcalfe]

Hi folks,

For those who are interested in comparing current LDS apologia to the BoMor narrative and Joseph Smith's prophetic legacy, see:

Brent Lee Metcalfe, "Reinventing Lamanite Identity," Sunstone (March 2004), 131:20–25.

Best wishes,

</brent>

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Hi folks,

For those who are interested in comparing current LDS apologia to the BoMor narrative and Joseph Smith's prophetic legacy, see:

Brent Lee Metcalfe, "Reinventing Lamanite Identity," Sunstone (March 2004), 131:20–25.

Best wishes,

</brent>

I read that article when it was published 3 years ago. An excellent read, and I whole-heartedly recommend it. Well done, Brent.

[_harmony]

Hi folks,

For those who are interested in comparing current LDS apologia to the BoMor narrative and Joseph Smith's prophetic legacy, see:

Brent Lee Metcalfe, "Reinventing Lamanite Identity," Sunstone (March 2004), 131:20–25.

Best wishes,

</brent>

I read that article when it was published 3 years ago. An excellent read, and I whole-heartedly recommend it. Well done, Brent.

Oh great. You just guarenteed that Loran and charity will never read it.

[_cksalmon]

Hi.

I hope you won't see me as living life on gold plates for bumping this thread, but I really am curious as to the source of your claim that Tom Murphy stated that DNA evidence proves Book of Mormon false. Where can I find that? I genuinely don't know the answer, so I'm asking you.

CKS

[_harmony]

Because it establishes in scientific tersm why the non-presence of "Hebrew" DNA does not prove that Lehi is a myth.

Personally, I don't think Lehi rises to the level of myth. Abraham... now there's a myth! But Lehi? Naw. He's just a character in a book. He's not well known enough to be a myth.

[_charity]

Hi.

I hope you won't see me as living life on gold plates for bumping this thread, but I really am curious as to the source of your claim that Tom Murphy stated that DNA evidence proves Book of Mormon false. Where can I find that? I genuinely don't know the answer, so I'm asking you.

CKS

"Murphy concluded that "DNA research lends no support to traditional Mormon beliefs about the origins of Native Americans" and he has likened the Book of Mormon to inspirational fiction. Murphy has reaffirmed this point several times since the initial publication of his essay in interviews and in videos produced by Living Hope Ministries, a Utah-based evangelical Christian ministry specializing in Mormon outreach."

This is found on wiki.

[_cksalmon]

Hi.

I hope you won't see me as living life on gold plates for bumping this thread, but I really am curious as to the source of your claim that Tom Murphy stated that DNA evidence proves Book of Mormon false. Where can I find that? I genuinely don't know the answer, so I'm asking you.

CKS

"Murphy concluded that (1) "DNA research lends no support to traditional Mormon beliefs about the origins of Native Americans" and (2) he has likened the Book of Mormon to inspirational fiction. Murphy has reaffirmed this point several times since the initial publication of his essay in interviews and in videos produced by Living Hope Ministries, a Utah-based evangelical Christian ministry specializing in Mormon outreach."

This is found on wiki.

(1) This is actually true.
(2) And? This is not tantamount to the claim that DNA evidence has proved Book of Mormon false.

Is this really what you were referring to? Charity, neither of these points is consistent with your claim. DCP didn't draw the conclusion that you have.

If this is what you were basing your conclusion on, then it would seem that, once again, you're arguing against an "anti" argument of your own manufacture. Would it be safe to say that you don't have any idea where Murphy has stated that "DNA evidence has proved Book of Mormon to be false" (rather than stating, quite correctly, by the way, that DNA research lends no support to traditional Mormon beliefs about Lamanites or that he views Book of Mormon as inspirational fiction)?

You made a bold claim about something that Tom Murphy has stated. I don't have any idea where to find that claim. You haven't provided it here.

I'm absolutely open to learning of a source for the claim. I think it's definitely within the realm of possibility. If you can't find it, though, I'll be sorely tempted to conclude that yours was an "overblown," "crackpot" claim unsubstantiated by the actual evidence. Where does Murphy state what you allege he has? (And bear in mind that "proof" is a different animal than opinion [Book of Mormon as inspired fiction] or currently-factual statements [DNA evidence lends no support to traditional Mormon beliefs.])

CKS

[_The Dude]

Murphy: "DNA research lends no support to traditional Mormon beliefs about the origins of Native Americans"

Murphy: likened the Book of Mormon to inspirational fiction. <-- that's a conclusion based on lack of supporting evidence.

Charity: "Murphy claimed that the DNA evidence proved the Book of Mormon to be false. What a crackpot."

So Charity, are you ready to admit you misconstrued Murphy's claim?
Or do we get to keep calling you Mrs. Strawman?

[_beastie]

Brent's article is fabulous. I was particularly interested in the original text of the Book of Mormon, in regards to certain verses apologists now insist refers to the "others".

WHERE CAN Book of Mormon readers find the
throngs of indigenous “others” who revisionist
scholars claim intermingled with the Jaredite and
Amerisraelite societies? Those who uncover “others” lurking in
the narrative often perceive them buried in subtle, or even
problematic, rhetorical nuances. Hugh Nibley and John
Sorenson, for example, discover non-Israelite “others” in a
prayer offered by Alma on behalf of the Zoramites: “O Lord,
their souls are precious, and many of them are our brethren”
(Alma 31:35, emphasis added). Nibley and Sorenson read
“many” (i.e., not all) as an indication of “other [non-Israelite]
things going on”5 and “ethnic variety.”6 Despite its appeal,
Nibley and Sorenson’s interpretation is unsound.
A slightly different, yet significant, rendition of this prayer is
preserved in the Book of Mormon original manuscript, print-
er’s manuscript,7 and 1830 edition: “. . . and many of them are
our near brethren.”8 In other words, “many”—but not all—of
the Zoramites are close relatives of Alma and some of his companions.
9 Amulek employs the same usage in his recollection,
“As I was journeying to see a very near kindred . . .”10 A rigorous
evaluation of Alma’s supplication provides no evidence
for an awareness of non-Israelite “others” in the promised land
during the Nephite reign.

[_charity]

Oh great. You just guarenteed that Loran and charity will never read it.

Wrong again, harmony.

I read it. I was not impressed. The cited passages of the Book of Mormon are limited. not comprehensive at all, and the interpretations certainly open to question.

For a oomplete treatment of the subject, I would recommend Matthew Roper's FAIR conference presentation found at http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences ... hbors.html

It is far more comprehensive than the Metcalfe article and answers many more questions.

Maybe Metcalfe can tell us why he was so selective in the points he presented, leaving out many other instances which support the view that there were others present.

But I suppose harmony, you won't read this one.