Who are the Lamanites now?

[_Gadianton Plumber]

The DNA matter has changed absolutely nothing about the identity of the Lamanites today.

The current apologetic stance is that . . . yes, Joseph Smith and the prophets didn't know what they were talking about; they were just sharing their opinion and had a "superficial" understanding of all things Mormon.

Ah, the irresistible gratification of the straw man caricature!

What do you mean it has changed nothing? Once upon a time retards like you were claiming total, then principle ancestry. Once upon a time the savages needed to be brought back into the house of Israel. Where are they now?

Danny

[_harmony]

I said believer, not Temple Recommend holder.

Are you doubting the discernment of my bishop and SP? Please to try to remember that no one is required to worship/believe in Joseph Smith in order to be a member in good standing in the LDS church, Nehor. I am a believe in Christ; that's a good place to start. So, yes... in this context, I am a believer, and you're embarrassing me.

[_harmony]

We don't enjoy being lied to.

Are we going to have to have another discussion about the difference between lying and being wrong? Just because they were wrong doesn't mean they were lying.




x

[_Daniel Peterson]

So are you saying that Native Americans ARE the Lamanites spoken of in the Book of Mormon?

I believe today's Native Americans to be descended from the Lamanites spoken of in the Book of Mormon.

I wrote, The current apologetic stance is that . . . yes, Joseph Smith and the prophets didn't know what they were talking about; they were just sharing their opinion and had a "superficial" understanding of all things Mormon.

Dan replied,

Ah, the irresistible gratification of the straw man caricature!

No straw man. I think I pretty much summed up where the current apologetic view lies.

Some here refer to me as the "chief apologist." Yet your description doesn't even remotely correspond to my view, and I don't know any "apologist" who would agree to it.

To what land, specifically do you think the Book of Mormon is referring, when it states it was saved for Lehi? You know, the promised land that would be uninhabited and saved for his family?

I believe it was an area in the Americas -- specifically in Mesoamerica.

When Christ came and converted EVERYONE... do you think all the Maya were converted?

No.

No more than, when "a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed," the peoples of sub-Saharan Africa, India, China, Japan, and the Americas were covered by that decree.

How many people do you think Nephi ruled over? If I recall correctly Brant is going with 1,000 max, (or about as many children in my neighborhood elementary school). One thousand people which includes the elderly, women, and children.

That's probably not far wrong.

Not quite the huge army of millions described in the Book of Mormon.

Are you referring to the twenty-three units of ten thousand each who died at the final Nephite battle (Mormon 6:11-15)? That's a total of 230,000, not "millions." And the units of ten thousand may have referred to ideal numbers, just as a U.S. Army division can fluctuate between 4,000 and 15,000, and just as a Roman "century" could be 100 soldiers, or sixty.

[_Joey]

I believe it was an area in the Americas -- specifically in Mesoamerica.

Is your conclusion bases on an emotional/spiritual feeling that is best shared and probably limited to a church fireside?

Or is it based on any scholarly/academic foundation that could be respected and shared in a secular, academic forum?

.[/quote]

[_Daniel Peterson]

My conclusion is based upon my reading of John Sorenson, John Clark, David Palmer, Brant Gardner, and others, whose evidence and analysis I find, on the whole, to be persuasive.

[_Joey]

My conclusion is based upon my reading of John Sorenson, John Clark, David Palmer, Brant Gardner, and others, whose evidence and analysis I find, on the whole, to be persuasive.

Persuasive enough to be shared and respected in a non-mormon, secular and academic forum?

(Come on now, don't Robert Millet me here. Answer the question that was asked as opposed to the one you "belive should have been asked"!!! Or are you just gonna "bufoon" me here again!!!)

[_Daniel Peterson]

Persuasive enough to be shared and respected in a non-mormon, secular and academic forum?

Sure. Why not?

[_Joey]

Persuasive enough to be shared and respected in a non-mormon, secular and academic forum?

Sure. Why not?

My thoughts exactly!

Why not/haven't they been shared and respected in a secular academic setting outside of the LDS church??

Assuming they are persuasive enough, of course!

[_truth dancer]

Hi Dan,

You wrote,

I believe today's Native Americans to be descended from the Lamanites spoken of in the Book of Mormon.

Wow, I didn't realize this.

Just to be clear, are you suggesting there were no other peoples in the Americas until Lehi & Co. (or other Book of Mormon groups) arrived? No Bering Strait migration?

Or are you suggesting there is some sort of "adoption" thing going on?

Some here refer to me as the "chief apologist." Yet your description doesn't even remotely correspond to my view, and I don't know any "apologist" who would agree to it.

Are you suggesting SWK was correct (speaking truth) in his teachings concerning the Native Americans and their dark skin becoming white and delightsome as they embraced the gospel?

Do you think Joseph Smith had a superficial understanding or do you think he was right on in his interpretations concerning the Nephites and Lamanites?

In other words, are you a fan of Meldrum?

I believe it was an area in the Americas -- specifically in Mesoamerica.

How many acres of land was considered the promised Land spoken of in the Book of Mormon saved for Lehi and his family and friends?

truth dancer wrote:
When Christ came and converted EVERYONE... do you think all the Maya were converted?

No.

No more than, when "a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed," the peoples of sub-Saharan Africa, India, China, Japan, and the Americas were covered by that decree.

So... in Fourth Nephi when it says,

2 And it came to pass in the thirty and sixth year, the people were all converted unto the Lord, upon all the face of the land, both Nephites and Lamanites, and there were no contentions and disputations among them, and every man did deal justly one with another.

...you are saying that this did not include the Maya? The "land" was basically a neighborhood? The Lamanites and Nephies who were coverted to the gospel amounts to the ending of a squabble between families?

Do you think your interpretation is the same as that of Joseph Smith?

~td~