Lamanite only a political designation?

[_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.

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?"

Who says those people at the temple dedications were not Lamanites? I believe the blood of Lehi flows in many, if not most, of the Amerindians living today. Indeed, Lehi is probably a direct ancestor of almost all of them. Just like you and I are direct descendants of Charlemagne.

[_John Larsen]

The statements that Will and others are using are still vacuous gas because they don't identify which Indians are not Lamanites. The word "among" plays the same shell game. Which Indians are not Lamanites, please let us know.

[_Ten Bear]

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.

lol. Who's "you people"?


Well, here we go again. Semantics. Why did these early saints join the church? What brought the people out to the SLC valley? Why did they leave their homes and families for another church? Because of a common belief right? Something they were taught, right? Noone is suggesting that they had organized classes with manuals and all. But we can say "common teachings". And more importantly, teachings that came from the Book of Mormon. And I would dare say, teachings that came from Joseph Smith himself. Now, who would know better if the lamanites were indiains or not? And we do know that that is what he taught.

[_Ten Bear]

Who says those people at the temple dedications were not Lamanites? I believe the blood of Lehi flows in many, if not most, of the Amerindians living today. Indeed, Lehi is probably a direct ancestor of almost all of them. Just like you and I are direct descendants of Charlemagne.

Mind you, I'm not a scholar or anything. But who is Charlemagne? I'll have to take your word here. But a question I might pose is, if we all are likely descendants of this Charlemagne, would mDNA verify that?

If it does, then wouldn't that be another nail in the Book of Mormon coffin? If it doesn't, then do we use the same arguments to answer why not as we do on the Book of Mormon and it's mDNA issues?

[_William Schryver]

Ten Bear:

Well, here we go again. Semantics. Why did these early saints join the church? What brought the people out to the SLC valley? Why did they leave their homes and families for another church? Because of a common belief right? Something they were taught, right? Noone is suggesting that they had organized classes with manuals and all. But we can say "common teachings". And more importantly, teachings that came from the Book of Mormon.

There was no such thing as these “common teachings” to which you refer, except perhaps that the gospel had been restored through a prophet and the Book of Mormon was evidence of his calling.

There was almost no teaching from the Book of Mormon for the first century of Mormonism. Search through the conference reports and publications of the 19th century, and you will hardly find a single citation from the Book of Mormon. Why? I’m not sure. Part of it is that they had a bias towards teaching from the Bible that they brought from their former religious affiliations. The bottom line is that they didn’t teach from the Book of Mormon, for the most part they didn’t read it, and they didn’t talk much about its contents.

John Larsen:

The statements that Will and others are using are still vacuous gas because they don't identify which Indians are not Lamanites. The word "among" plays the same shell game. Which Indians are not Lamanites, please let us know.

No matter how clearly it gets said, you still just don’t get it, do you? You’re all setting records for obtuseness here, but I suppose that’s by design, isn’t it?

Let’s try again: I’m don’t believe there are many Amerinds that cannot be appropriately termed “Lamanites.”

I would definitely argue that the Amerinds in Mesoamerica, and the temperate zones of North America are “Lamanites” in the more literal, “descendant of Lehi” way. How far Lehi’s DNA has been dispersed is a topic for some debate. Some experts in population genetics would argue that his descendants are probably on every continent by now.

[_William Schryver]

Who says those people at the temple dedications were not Lamanites? I believe the blood of Lehi flows in many, if not most, of the Amerindians living today. Indeed, Lehi is probably a direct ancestor of almost all of them. Just like you and I are direct descendants of Charlemagne.

Mind you, I'm not a scholar or anything. But who is Charlemagne? I'll have to take your word here. But a question I might pose is, if we all are likely descendants of this Charlemagne, would mDNA verify that?

If it does, then wouldn't that be another nail in the Book of Mormon coffin? If it doesn't, then do we use the same arguments to answer why not as we do on the Book of Mormon and it's mDNA issues?

Now we're getting somewhere!

Charlemagne was a king who lived around 400 A.D. He was also a prolific breeder, hence his prevalence in family trees that stretch back that far.

You ask, "... would mDNA verify that?"

And the answer ................... drumroll .................... NO, it would not! Why? Because DNA testing in general, and mitochondrial DNA testing in particular, does not look at anything except a small fraction of our inherited DNA. And even though I can trace my genealogy back to several kings of England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Norway, Denmark, Germany, and France, none of them are going to let me borrow the crown jewels for the weekend, nor would DNA testing necessarily show my relationship to Prince Harry.

And there is no reason to suppose that the DNA signature of a man named Lehi -- whatever his DNA may have looked like -- would be found in anyone living today, even though he may very literally be among the ancestors of every Amerindian currently living, just as Charlemagne is among my hundreds of thousands of ancestors.

[_Who Knows]

There was almost no teaching from the Book of Mormon for the first century of Mormonism. Search through the conference reports and publications of the 19th century, and you will hardly find a single citation from the Book of Mormon. Why? I’m not sure. Part of it is that they had a bias towards teaching from the Bible that they brought from their former religious affiliations. The bottom line is that they didn’t teach from the Book of Mormon, for the most part they didn’t read it, and they didn’t talk much about its contents.

For the early leaders, there wasn't even a debate surrounding the question of the origin of the native americans. Joseph Smith had spoken, and the thinking had been done. Joseph Smith said the americas were populated by the Book of Mormon peoples. Case closed.

Fast forward a number of decades - science starts to figure out where the native americans actually came from. You get the rest of the story...

Some experts in population genetics would argue that his {lehi's} descendants are probably on every continent by now.

lol. why don't you name some of them? Try and name 1 who's not LDS.

[_Ten Bear]

There was no such thing as these “common teachings” to which you refer, except perhaps that the gospel had been restored through a prophet and the Book of Mormon was evidence of his calling.

Well then. Wouldn't that be a common teaching? How ever so simple? But I think it was certainly more than just that. These early saints had full knowledge that the Book of Mormon was a history of the American Indain. i.e. Lamanite = Indian. And it was certainly common.

[_Who Knows]

Who says those people at the temple dedications were not Lamanites? I believe the blood of Lehi flows in many, if not most, of the Amerindians living today. Indeed, Lehi is probably a direct ancestor of almost all of them. Just like you and I are direct descendants of Charlemagne.

Mind you, I'm not a scholar or anything. But who is Charlemagne? I'll have to take your word here. But a question I might pose is, if we all are likely descendants of this Charlemagne, would mDNA verify that?

If it does, then wouldn't that be another nail in the Book of Mormon coffin? If it doesn't, then do we use the same arguments to answer why not as we do on the Book of Mormon and it's mDNA issues?

Now we're getting somewhere!

Charlemagne was a king who lived around 400 A.D. He was also a prolific breeder, hence his prevalence in family trees that stretch back that far.

You ask, "... would mDNA verify that?"

And the answer ................... drumroll .................... NO, it would not! Why? Because DNA testing in general, and mitochondrial DNA testing in particular, does not look at anything except a small fraction of our inherited DNA. And even though I can trace my genealogy back to several kings of England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Norway, Denmark, Germany, and France, none of them are going to let me borrow the crown jewels for the weekend, nor would DNA testing necessarily show my relationship to Prince Harry.

And there is no reason to suppose that the DNA signature of a man named Lehi -- whatever his DNA may have looked like -- would be found in anyone living today, even though he may very literally be among the ancestors of every Amerindian currently living, just as Charlemagne is among my hundreds of thousands of ancestors.

Ignore the red herring...

No one is saying that if a group of 30 lehites mixed with millions of native americans, the lehite DNA should be detectable.

[_The Nehor]

Ignore the red herring...

No one is saying that if a group of 30 lehites mixed with millions of native americans, the lehite DNA should be detectable.

True, there were probably less than 30.