Lamanite only a political designation?

[_guy sajer]

Since Will seems to be so enthusiastic about outing doubters to ecclesiastical authority, perhaps someone should out Will . . .

GREAT POINT! As this thread has so thoroughly demonstrated, who counts as a "doubter" more than Will himself?

Or perhaps they will make me an official spokesman for the church, since my views seem to accord so well with theirs, as evidenced by this statement from 1997:

"As to whether these were the first inhabitants…we don't have a position on that. Our scripture does not try to account for any other people who may have lived in the New World before, during or after the days of the Jaredites and the Nephites, and we don't have any official doctrine about who the descendants of the Nephites and the Jaredites are. Many Mormons believe that American Indians are descendants of the Lamanites [a division of the Nephites], but that's not in the scripture."

Stewart Reid, LDS Public Relations, March 1997

That's interesting. So now it is official LDS Church policy that 150 years of prophetic and apostolic pronouncements on the origin of the American Indian (North, Central, and South) are null and void?

I guess you're not the heretic after all.

Strange it took the Bretheren around 10 years more to change the intro to the Book of Mormon to reflect this new insight. I wonder when they'll get around to actually putting this in lesson manuals and teaching it from the pulpit?

I don't see an institutional disavowal of past Prophetic and Apostolic (and I imagine as well contemporary--I bet we can still find examples of Bretheren claiming the Indian to be descendents of Book of Mormon peoples post 1997) as strengthening your overall position as to the veracity of the Book of Mormon and the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith (who clearly taught Indians ARE descendents of Book of Mormon peoples) and his successors.

[_William Schryver]

Well we know a prophet is only a prophet when speaking as prophet. So when are folks like Levi Edgar Young, Janne M. Sjodahl and William E. Berrett speaking as prophets?

These are just opinons, and minority ones at that. They hardly represent the official Church position or the general understanding among Church leaders.

The overwhelming view among Mormons is that Indians are Lamanites and Lamanites are Indians. This was part of the sales pitch that made conversions in South America so successful. I know. I live there. "This is a history about your ancestors!" is a common sales pitch by missionaries even today.

Try telling a Brazilian any of this stuff Will is suggesting and they get all pissed off at you for being a "fundy" or "apostate." Yet, Will assures us that the Church has taught this to us "all our lives."

Right.

The Church teaches what people need to hear. And right now, more than ever, in light of DNA evidence, the LDS people need to hear about how the Indians aren't necessarily Lamanites. It is all about apologetics and distancing the church from a possible coffin nail.

Elder Young was speaking in General Conference. Sjodahl and Berrett, et al. were assigned the job of preparing study materials for the Book of Mormon. All of them predate the so-called DNA controversy by decades. And yet they said the same things that are being said now. Do you deny this? Of course, you can't.

I can find other examples of this same kind of thing. Was it the majority opinion? Probably it was among serious students of the Book of Mormon. But that doesn't mean that the average Mormon thought this way. But it demonstrates that as early as the 1920s, there was an official effort being made to teach this way of viewing the Book of Mormon! And, there was a recognition that not all Amerindians were necessarily descendants of Lehi.

For critics to continue to deny this is, to me, simply another manifestation of their inability to view these things rationally. They are fundies. They were that way when they were active LDS, and now that they're exmos, they're still that way.

[_BishopRic]

Well we know a prophet is only a prophet when speaking as prophet. So when are folks like Levi Edgar Young, Janne M. Sjodahl and William E. Berrett speaking as prophets?

These are just opinons, and minority ones at that. They hardly represent the official Church position or the general understanding among Church leaders.

The overwhelming view among Mormons is that Indians are Lamanites and Lamanites are Indians. This was part of the sales pitch that made conversions in South America so successful. I know. I live there. "This is a history about your ancestors!" is a common sales pitch by missionaries even today.

Try telling a Brazilian any of this stuff Will is suggesting and they get all pissed off at you for being a "fundy" or "apostate." Yet, Will assures us that the Church has taught this to us "all our lives."

Right.

The Church teaches what people need to hear. And right now, more than ever, in light of DNA evidence, the LDS people need to hear about how the Indians aren't necessarily Lamanites. It is all about apologetics and distancing the church from a possible coffin nail.

Elder Young was speaking in General Conference. Sjodahl and Berrett, et al. were assigned the job of preparing study materials for the Book of Mormon. All of them predate the so-called DNA controversy by decades. And yet they said the same things that are being said now. Do you deny this? Of course, you can't.

I can find other examples of this same kind of thing. Was it the majority opinion? Probably it was among serious students of the Book of Mormon. But that doesn't mean that the average Mormon thought this way. But it demonstrates that as early as the 1920s, there was an official effort being made to teach this way of viewing the Book of Mormon! And, there was a recognition that not all Amerindians were necessarily descendants of Lehi.

For critics to continue to deny this is, to me, simply another manifestation of their inability to view these things rationally. They are fundies. They were that way when they were active LDS, and now that they're exmos, they're still that way.

WHAT? So you're saying that in all the temple dedicatory prayers offered by the prophets telling them that they are Lamanites, and all the missionary sales-pitches to the Mexicans/South americans/etc. were all only opinion -- and probably wrong at that?

I can't believe you can even say what you're saying!

[_Ten Bear]

I can find other examples of this same kind of thing. Was it the majority opinion? Probably it was among serious students of the Book of Mormon. But that doesn't mean that the average Mormon thought this way. But it demonstrates that as early as the 1920s, there was an official effort being made to teach this way of viewing the Book of Mormon! And, there was a recognition that not all Amerindians were necessarily descendants of Lehi.

For the life of me, I can't understand why you're pushing "But that doesn't mean that the average Mormon thought this way". It's a game right?

Look, I've had the opportunity to live in wards from California to Boston and many, many places inbetween. (Nature of my career). I've sat down with members of every walk in my 45+ years as a TBM and enjoyed good converstation and shared much. But the one thing you or anybody is not going to tell me is that the average Mormon doesn't think that the American Indian is a Lamanite. They do. I'll give you this; we haven't heard it preached over the pulpit at General Conference for quite a few years. I know, I've been listening. Funny that.

Oh, and I'm not a fundie. I just call it like I see it.

[_William Schryver]

I can find other examples of this same kind of thing. Was it the majority opinion? Probably it was among serious students of the Book of Mormon. But that doesn't mean that the average Mormon thought this way. But it demonstrates that as early as the 1920s, there was an official effort being made to teach this way of viewing the Book of Mormon! And, there was a recognition that not all Amerindians were necessarily descendants of Lehi.

For the life of me, I can't understand why you're pushing "But that doesn't mean that the average Mormon thought this way". It's a game right?

Look, I've had the opportunity to live in wards from California to Boston and many, many places inbetween. (Nature of my career). I've sat down with members of every walk in my 45+ years as a TBM and enjoyed good converstation and shared much. But the one thing you or anybody is not going to tell me is that the average Mormon doesn't think that the American Indian is a Lamanite. They do. I'll give you this; we haven't heard it preached over the pulpit at General Conference for quite a few years. I know, I've been listening. Funny that.

Oh, and I'm not a fundie. I just call it like I see it.

You misunderstood what I said. Read it again. I'm acknowledging the fact that the "average Mormon" probably thought just like you. I'm only saying that people were trying to teach otherwise as long ago as the 1920s.

[_BishopRic]

I can find other examples of this same kind of thing. Was it the majority opinion? Probably it was among serious students of the Book of Mormon. But that doesn't mean that the average Mormon thought this way. But it demonstrates that as early as the 1920s, there was an official effort being made to teach this way of viewing the Book of Mormon! And, there was a recognition that not all Amerindians were necessarily descendants of Lehi.

For the life of me, I can't understand why you're pushing "But that doesn't mean that the average Mormon thought this way". It's a game right?

Look, I've had the opportunity to live in wards from California to Boston and many, many places inbetween. (Nature of my career). I've sat down with members of every walk in my 45+ years as a TBM and enjoyed good converstation and shared much. But the one thing you or anybody is not going to tell me is that the average Mormon doesn't think that the American Indian is a Lamanite. They do. I'll give you this; we haven't heard it preached over the pulpit at General Conference for quite a few years. I know, I've been listening. Funny that.

Oh, and I'm not a fundie. I just call it like I see it.

You misunderstood what I said. Read it again. I'm acknowledging the fact that the "average Mormon" probably thought just like you. I'm only saying that people were trying to teach otherwise as long ago as the 1920s.

So you find a few people (not even the prophets of the day) that taught what you said. But I'd really like to know your thoughts on the other side -- were the Presidents of the church -- Spencer W. Kimball, etc., wrong to declare to the listeners of the temple prayers that they were Lamanites? Or is this where we spin it to a "political term?"

[_Ten Bear]

You misunderstood what I said. Read it again. I'm acknowledging the fact that the "average Mormon" probably thought just like you. I'm only saying that people were trying to teach otherwise as long ago as the 1920s.

Yes, I did mis-read that. My bad. Sorry.

I don't doubt that there were those who were trying to teach that. Maybe they saw what was coming?

So up until 1920, common teachings were to lead members to think that the Lamanites were the Am. Indian and only that. Then here (around the '20s or after) we see an effort to teach members that there may have been others. Why? Where did they get their information from? Inspiration from the Lord or just that dumb science?

[_William Schryver]

You misunderstood what I said. Read it again. I'm acknowledging the fact that the "average Mormon" probably thought just like you. I'm only saying that people were trying to teach otherwise as long ago as the 1920s.

Yes, I did mis-read that. My bad. Sorry.

I don't doubt that there were those who were trying to teach that. Maybe they saw what was coming?

So up until 1920, common teachings were to lead members to think that the Lamanites were the Am. Indian and only that. Then here (around the '20s or after) we see an effort to teach members that there may have been others. Why? Where did they get their information from? Inspiration from the Lord or just that dumb science?

There was so such thing as "common teachings" before about 1920! Don't you people get that? There was no such thing as correlation, etc. There were no study manuals, etc. When the church started making an effort to take control of teaching is when we start to see these kinds of quotes appear.

You can actually find people saying these kinds of things as far back as the 1880s. Why? Well, that's about the time that people in Utah had finally gotten established, after 40 years of trying to tame the wilderness, and they finally started actually doing those things you do when you have a little leisure time: like actually studying the Book of Mormon. Up until then, there is no evidence at all that anyone had ever seriously undertaken a study of the book. As soon as people actually start dissecting the text, it becomes apparent that some of the initial impressions were not accurate -- among them the actual geographic scope of the book. The travel times alone tell us that we're talking about an area of maybe 500 miles in diameter.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

I still stand with what I said. Most LDS believe that the Native Americans are the Lamanites. Now where do they get that from?

That is the big question. Every LDS I know believes NAs are Lamanites. Where in the world did they get such crazy ideas?

[_dartagnan]

Elder Young was speaking in General Conference.

Yes, he was speaking his opinion, nothing more. It didn't resonate with the Church until the DNA stuff presented problems for Joseph Smith's understanding of the Book of Mormon. Now the scholars at FARMS are working overtime trying to come up with apologetic arguments.

Isn't it funny how the "it was just an opinion" argument is embraced by apologists when past prophets say stupid things, yet whenever a nobody throws something out on the table that could be used for apologetic purposes seventy years down the road, suddenly it isn't just an opinion, but rather an "official effort" by the "Church" to teach something.

Sjodahl and Berrett, et al. were assigned the job of preparing study materials for the Book of Mormon

So? They presented their opinion, nothing more. It didn't resonate with the Church.

All of them predate the so-called DNA controversy by decades. And yet they said the same things that are being said now. Do you deny this? Of course, you can't.

I don't need to either. I never said otherwise. The DNA controversy sparked an apologetic necessity to revive dead opinions from a very few LDS commentators.

I can find other examples of this same kind of thing.

Present all the examples you've got.

Was it the majority opinion? Probably it was among serious students of the Book of Mormon.

There is no "probably" about it. It most certainly was and is.

But that doesn't mean that the average Mormon thought this way.

The average Mormon did and does think this way.
Most Mormons do think this way, and virtually all Mormons thought that way during the 19th century. You're insulting everyone's intelligence by trying to exahlt this minority fringe view as if it were always the norm in Mormon studies.

But it demonstrates that as early as the 1920s, there was an official effort being made to teach this way of viewing the Book of Mormon!

You obviously don't understand what's official. If speaking at COnference on just about anything constitutes an "official effort" to teach something, then the Church officially taught Adam God, it officialy taught skin color changes with faithfulness, etc. And how is it that subsequent Church publications, that are actually taught to the membership on sundays, completely contradict these very few opinions of the past?

And, there was a recognition that not all Amerindians were necessarily descendants of Lehi.

By a very few, yes. It wasn't an official Church proclamation.

For critics to continue to deny this is, to me, simply another manifestation of their inability to view these things rationally.

You don't seem to be grasping what the critical argument really is, which smells like another straw man burning.

They are fundies. They were that way when they were active LDS, and now that they're exmos, they're still that way.

The fact that they have changed their minds is only evidence that their minds can be changed; evidence that they are reasonable. It shows that their minds can be changed by a presentation of sufficient evidence. On the other hand, the fact that apologists don't change their minds is evidence that they are not reasonable, because as your cohort pacman once said, "no amount of evidence will convince me the Church isn't true." So why are you pretending to be interested in a real discussion about deducing the facts as we have them? Ultimately you're going to fall back on this silly "You're all fundies... I was just here to poke fun" nonsense, as you always do.

And I get a kick out of the way you dismiss the Book of Mormon by saying it is our "biased interpretation" of it. How is it that our interpretation is the same as the interpretations of 19th century LDS leadership? You're an apostate according to 19th century Mormonism. You've failed to trust Joseph Smith and have instead relied on the creativity of modern apologetics. Who will you have to answer to in the hereafter, Joseph Smith or Brant Gardner?