Thanksgiving, Indians, and the recent change to the Book of Mormon

[_marg]

And I'm going to ask you again..what evidence is there that around 600 B.C. a group came from the Middle East and were ancestors of current American Indians? At this point I don't care whether or not they were important. All I want to know is what evidence do you use to conclude there were any Middle Eastern ancestry which stems from 600 B.C. arrival.

God said. That is good enough for me. LDS have never required scientific evidence for matters of faith.

But for those interested in learning truth, there are lots of things Joseph would have had to have guessed right about at an unbelievable rate for the Book of Mormon to have been simply a 19th century work of fiction.

I see so when you mentioned previously you come from a background of science, that background is completely irrelevant to the issue of ancestry of American Indians, as you base the issue completely on faith. Why didn't you mention that as well. Why mislead as if science has something to do with your claim.

You have no evidence and the claim "American Indians have Israelite ancestry dating from 600 B.C." is completely unreliable.

So if the church has lied on this matter you wouldn't know it, because you don't use evidence, you rely solely on faith. That's all well and good for yourself. But if the Church has lied then not only are others being misled, not only is it making false historical claims about a group of people, but it is also at a cost to membership as well.

If the church maintained the old wording "principal ancestors" eventually as this new science became better understood church membership would begin to appreciate Lamanites/Middle Eastern immigrants could not possibly be "principal" ancestors of Am. Indians. The powers to be running the church know that science would win out over that claim and hence the reason to change the wording and minimize the claim to allow for a small number of immigrants arriving to a land already populated. There is no reason to minimize the claim if all it was about was "importance". So by minimizing the claim it can now fly under the radar screen of science, to the point that no evidence is necessary and science is irrelevant.

I notice you are aware of this fact that if the immigrant population is small and mixes in with a larger population the evidence could be diluted out. And I also notice you talk about numbers of people in the following: You say "You should read the great guru of genetics, according to the anti-Mormons, plant geneticist, Simon Southerton. He says that if a small group of immigrants came to the New World, and mixed in with the existing population, there would likely be no genetic imprint left." So you are fully cognizant that this apologist argument about ancestry can only be argued from the perspective of a "small group of immigrants" mixing into another existing population. You are either a liar or you are intellectually dishonest when you claim "principal" does not refer to numbers because you know full well what the argument is about and any "principal" ancestry of American Indians would have genetic data to back it.

The principal ancestors of American Indians only started from a small immigrant group Charity, but it was Asian ancestry not Middle Eastern. Had the Book of Mormon talked about signifance other groups when this small immigrant group arrived you might have a leg to stand on, and you wouldn't come across as either intellectually dishonest or a flat out liar.

[_the road to hana]

marg: You have believed lies told by individuals in whom there is no truth. They are fighting against God and you have bought into it.You ought to at least think about how wrong you have been as evidenced in the post I am responding to. And then look to see where else you have been led astray by Satan's minions.

What's most amusing is that there are those in this world who could change the "marg" to "Charity" and say the same exact thing to you. There are likely even some Evangelical Protestants who'd mean it.

This is sort of a "my dad can beat up your dad" argument, isn't it?

[Tator]

beastie

I don't care whether or not it was a "doctrine". "Doctrines" are almost non-existent under the hands of apologists.

Charity:

Poppycock.

Well, you did say you were going to “dumb down” your posts. Good start.

At any rate, there is very little that apologists will concede as “doctrine”. But I am not willing or interested to discuss this point at length, your entire introduction of “doctrine” was a diversionary attempt. I never used the word doctrine to begin with.

Call for references on this one. Please post your source, Church manual, General Conference talk, Ensign article. Something official as a Church teaching.

Well, let’s start with just one. This is an article written by John Sorenson, published in the Ensign, Sept. 1984. I’m just going to select certain passages, but here’s the entire article:

http://LDS.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnex ... RD&locale=
0&sourceId=c4f105481ae6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

Digging into the Book of Mormon:
Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture

One problem some Latter-day Saint writers and lecturers have had is confusing the actual text of the Book of Mormon with the traditional interpretation of it. For example, a commonly heard statement is that the Book of Mormon is “the history of the American Indians.” This statement contains a number of unexamined assumptions—that the scripture is a history in the common sense—a systematic, chronological account of the main events in the past of a nation or territory; that “the” American Indians are a unitary population; and that the approximately one hundred pages of text containing historical and cultural material in the scripture could conceivably tell the entire history of a hemisphere. When unexamined assumptions like these are made, critics respond in kind, criticizing not the ancient text itself, but the assumptions we have made about it.

Obviously, Sorenson is referring to the hemispheric model with the terms “traditional interpretation” and “unitary populations”.

In speaking about BH Robert’s Book of Mormon Studies, Sorenson states:

Unfortunately, what was then assumed to be true about ancient American civilization has since proven to be based on incomplete, and in some cases inaccurate, information. In his studies, for example, Elder Roberts used the general idea which prevailed in his time that the Book of Mormon was a history of the entire Western Hemisphere. It can now be seen that on both counts (knowledge of the appropriate scholarly material and analysis of technical aspects of the Book of Mormon) some of his assumptions about the Book of Mormon were faulty.
Among the criticisms of the Book of Mormon by archaeologists, the two most widely circulated statements (the late Robert Wauchope’s book and Michael Coe’s article nearly a decade ago 5) suffer from similar limitations. Both of these eminent scholars based their reactions to the Book of Mormon on the same unfortunate assumption that the Book of Mormon account is about events involving American Indians throughout the entire New World. Their conclusions were as flawed as those arrived at by some Latter-day Saints.

Later, he states:

These are very important points. For a long time, few people seemed to see any difficulty in setting the Book of Mormon in all of North and South America. The geography seemed so obvious—a continent northward and a continent southward, joined by a narrow isthmus. Eventually, however, accepting that view of the Book of Mormon lands became difficult in light of new information. For example, by the early twentieth-century, research had found that as many as 1,500 languages had been in use in the New World at the time of European discovery. 7 And new knowledge about the process of language stability and change made it impossible to suppose that all those languages could have derived from the Hebrew presumed to be the speech of the Nephites and Lamanites. Archaeology also began revealing a bewildering diversity of cultures, reinforcing the idea that many groups had lived in the Americas.

Sorenson clearly concedes what Charity demands proof of: that the hemispheric model of the Book of Mormon was a common understanding and teaching among LDS.

I guess I have a higher tolerance for letting people make sloppy conclusions. Like I said, I am not as nice as the Brethren.

This statement makes zero sense.

Again, when you bring Joseph Smith into this, you are being disingenous. The introduction to the Book of Mormon was not written by him, approved by him, etc. It was written, most likely by Bruce R. McConkie. But that really isn't relevant anyway, since changing the word principal to among does not change a thing doctrinally or in the teachings of the Church. We will still teach the correct doctrine, that the Lamanites, as ancestors of the American Indian, qualify them to receieve the blessings of Abraham. That did not change.

One more time. The introduction to the Book of Mormon reflected the understanding of those who not only wrote it, but approved of it. That understanding was formed by the understandings of the leaders who went before them, including Joseph Smith.
It defies logic to insist that the introduction reflects LGT when the people who wrote it and approved of it believed in the hemispheric model. That is the only point I am trying to make with you, Charity.

[_beastie]

Really, beastie, you deserved it when you put up a bunch of pseudo-scientific theories and then overlooked the fact that your link called them pseudo-scientific theories. Sort of blew your argument right there. I usually expect better out of you.

And just to keep the record clear, I didn't bring up any "flying spaghetti monster" arguments. As I recall your rebuttal to my very respectable scientific paradigm shifts was a long list of crackpot science.

Can we get back to grown up talk now? And let's leave "pseudo" completely out of the conversation.

Well, that was a remarkably fast turn-around. In case you didn’t catch it, the reason I keep asking you if the fact that you keep insulting me means that you’ve lost the argument, know it, and are venting in frustration is because you recently made this very claim. You claimed that people only call names and insult when they have lost the argument and know it, and are frustrated by their own inadequacies. I argued against your claim.

So whether or not you think I “deserved” it is entirely irrelevant. Everyone who calls names and insults believes the other person “deserved it”. I believe you deserve it, too. The question for me is this: are you engaging in this behavior because you’ve lost the argument and are frustrated?

If you answer no, then you have defeated your own previous argument. If you answered yes, well, I agree with you. You have catastrophically lost this argument.

In regards to “pseudo” – I don’t care what label you attach to these disrespected theories. The point is that they are theories that are disputed, and they are NOT “winning out” in the end. So, once again, do you wish to modify your statement? When you said that “disputed theories normally usually win out”, did you really mean to say that “theories that supplant previous theories were usually disputed when they were introduced”? They say entirely different things, and you have given me no indication yet you understand the difference.

When disputed theories remain disputed, they are called “pseudoscience”, or, to use your own term, “crackpot”. (and why are you calling a theory you believe in yourself crackpot?)

And yes, you brought up the flying spaghetti monster in this conversation. It was one of your many comments have made absolutely no sense.

[_beastie]

marg: You have believed lies told by individuals in whom there is no truth. They are fighting against God and you have bought into it.You ought to at least think about how wrong you have been as evidenced in the post I am responding to. And then look to see where else you have been led astray by Satan's minions.

I must admit that I enjoy it whenever Charity shows her nature. So far on this thread, she has used the terms idiot, needing "dumbed-down" posts, needing posts with one syllable words, and now, Satan's minions.

Hmmm. Perhaps Charity is right, and people only engage in this behavior when they are completely over their heads in the discussion and their frustration gets the best of them.

[_barrelomonkeys]

Let's take dowsing, since you brought it up. This shows the fundamental weakness of your mindset. If something not been PROVEN, then you believe it has been DISPROVEN. Dowsing has not been "debunked." The ultimate statement that can be made about dowsing right now is "The efficacy of dowsing has not been proven scientifically." That is not saying that is has been disproven. You remind me a student I had in a class when the O.J. jury came back with the "not guily" verdict. She got that ditzy look on her face. "Golly gee, I thought he did it, but he really didn't. Wow."

Sorry, but since you brought it up (and water dowsing drives me nutso) please look to this government report on water dowsing.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/water_dowsing/ ... owsing.pdf

Some water exists under the Earth's surface almost everywhere. This explains why many dowsers appear to be successful.
To locate ground water accurately, however, as to depth, quantity, and quality, a number of techniques must be used . Hydrologic,
geologic, and geophysical knowledge is needed to determine the depths and extent of the different water-bearing strata and the
quantity and quality of water found in each . The area must be thoroughly tested and studied to determine these facts. The U.S.
Geological Survey, the Federal agency with major responsibility for assessing the quantity and quality of the Nation's surface
and ground waters, believes that no single technique suffices to locate favorable water-well sites.
Numerous books and pamphlets have been written on the subject of water dowsing. Some of these publications report on
scientifically controlled experiments and investigations.From these findings,the U.S. Geological Survey has concluded that the
expense of further tests of water dowsing is not justified.

Despite almost unanimous condemnation by geologists and technicians, the practice of
waterdowsing has spread throughout America.

If something has no reliability, and is pure chance why rely on it? I don't understand that mindset at all. I think healthy skepticism is appropriate for anyone that says they can "sense" things. So, maybe it hasn't been "disproven" yet I'm not going to hire a man with a stick to walk around on my property to find water. Not happening.

I could see a ditzy look happening after the water dowser picked a spot with no water and I drilled a well relying on his stick abilities. ;)

[_charity]

Call for references on this one. Please post your source, Church manual, General Conference talk, Ensign article. Something official as a Church teaching.

Well, let’s start with just one. This is an article written by John Sorenson, published in the Ensign, Sept. 1984. I’m just going to select certain passages, but here’s the entire article:

http://LDS.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnex ... RD&locale=
0&sourceId=c4f105481ae6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

Digging into the Book of Mormon:
Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture

One problem some Latter-day Saint writers and lecturers have had is confusing the actual text of the Book of Mormon with the traditional interpretation of it. For example, a commonly heard statement is that the Book of Mormon is “the history of the American Indians.” This statement contains a number of unexamined assumptions—that the scripture is a history in the common sense—a systematic, chronological account of the main events in the past of a nation or territory; that “the” American Indians are a unitary population; and that the approximately one hundred pages of text containing historical and cultural material in the scripture could conceivably tell the entire history of a hemisphere. When unexamined assumptions like these are made, critics respond in kind, criticizing not the ancient text itself, but the assumptions we have made about it.

Obviously, Sorenson is referring to the hemispheric model with the terms “traditional interpretation” and “unitary populations”.

First, Dr. Sorenson is not a General Authority. Any article by a person not a General Authority is taken as educational, not doctrinal, and not even "teachings of the Church."

Second, Dr. Sorenson is talking about the "traditional interpretation." Not traditional teachings of the Church. You have not understood the difference between "the Church" and the "culture" of the Church.

In speaking about BH Robert’s Book of Mormon Studies, Sorenson states:

Unfortunately, what was then assumed to be true about ancient American civilization has since proven to be based on incomplete, and in some cases inaccurate, information. In his studies, for example, Elder Roberts used the general idea which prevailed in his time that the Book of Mormon was a history of the entire Western Hemisphere. It can now be seen that on both counts (knowledge of the appropriate scholarly material and analysis of technical aspects of the Book of Mormon) some of his assumptions about the Book of Mormon were faulty.
Among the criticisms of the Book of Mormon by archaeologists, the two most widely circulated statements (the late Robert Wauchope’s book and Michael Coe’s article nearly a decade ago 5) suffer from similar limitations. Both of these eminent scholars based their reactions to the Book of Mormon on the same unfortunate assumption that the Book of Mormon account is about events involving American Indians throughout the entire New World. Their conclusions were as flawed as those arrived at by some Latter-day Saints.

Again, beastie, look at what is being said. B. H. Roberts was a member of the Seventy. He was not sustained as a prophet, seer, or revelator. It is a small distinction maybe to the outsider, but it is of major significance in authority to speak for the Church. Dr. Sorenson is referring to the work of scholars. Not Church teachings.

Later on he writes:

These are very important points. For a long time, few people seemed to see any difficulty in setting the Book of Mormon in all of North and South America. The geography seemed so obvious—a continent northward and a continent southward, joined by a narrow isthmus. Eventually, however, accepting that view of the Book of Mormon lands became difficult in light of new information. For example, by the early twentieth-century, research had found that as many as 1,500 languages had been in use in the New World at the time of European discovery. 7 And new knowledge about the process of language stability and change made it impossible to suppose that all those languages could have derived from the Hebrew presumed to be the speech of the Nephites and Lamanites. Archaeology also began revealing a bewildering diversity of cultures, reinforcing the idea that many groups had lived in the Americas.

Sorenson clearly concedes what Charity demands proof of: that the hemispheric model of the Book of Mormon was a common understanding and teaching among LDS.

Here again, beastie, you are putting words in my mouth. I never said people didn't think that. I said it wasn't taught as an official view of the Church. Of course, people speculate about unknowns. But to say it was taught "in the Church": is a major falsehood. You have shown nothing that indicates teachings in the Church. Only what some people thought.

I guess I have a higher tolerance for letting people make sloppy conclusions. Like I said, I am not as nice as the Brethren.

This statement makes zero sense.

I can't find words of one syllable, so you will have to stretch. If it were me, I would have left the introduction as it was. The Church is not responsible for people with limited vocabulary making wrong interpretations. And the Church certainly has no responsibility to answer yammering critics. But, if they want to adjust the wording slightly out of kindness then that's okay by me. But nothing in the introduction changed.

The introduction to the Book of Mormon reflected the understanding of those who not only wrote it, but approved of it. That understanding was formed by the understandings of the leaders who went before them, including Joseph Smith.
It defies logic to insist that the introduction reflects LGT when the people who wrote it and approved of it believed in the hemispheric model. That is the only point I am trying to make with you, Charity.

By the time Bruce R. McConkie (most likely) wrote the introduction, there were other theories out there. One of them was that the land northward and southward were on what is now the eastern coast of South America. But in the time of the Lehites, most of the continent was under water, and just a small portion was sticking up. Whoever wrote the intro, he was certainly aware of other theories at the time. The introduction does not state a hemispheric model, and you are just pressumming that. Your presumptions are what really calls for skepticism.

[_beastie]

Oh, goodie, another semantic twist. Now we get to parse about what constitutes a "teaching" in the church, as well as what constitutes "doctrine".

Ever going to answer my question about why you've been so insulting?

Interestingly, here's another article by Sorenson which shows that even by 1992 he hadn't fully incorporated the existence of the "others" in his model.

http://LDS.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnex ... &sourceId=
115794bf3938b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

Under "I have a Question", Ensign, Sept 1992

I have heard that the sizes of the Nephite and Lamanite populations indicated in the Book of Mormon do not make sense. What do we know about their numbers?

John L. Sorenson, professor of anthropology, emeritus, Brigham Young University, and Gospel Doctrine teacher, Edgemont Seventh Ward, Provo Utah Edgemont South Stake.

Discussions of this topic tend to one extreme or the other. Some people have made invalid assumptions about possible rates of natural increase among Lehi’s descendants. For example, growth rates derived from modern population studies are useless if they refer to conditions unlike those prevailing in Book of Mormon times. We have no way of knowing whether the newcomers had trouble adapting to the climate and new foods. Nor do we know what diseases afflicted the people at that time. On the other hand, we get nowhere by speculating on unknowable things like a doubling of population every generation among the early immigrants.

Although the Book of Mormon is silent on population growth and decline as such, it does provide glimpses of how the numbers were growing. For example, the data on armies and battle casualties indicate quite consistent growth.

An obvious puzzle is how the Lamanites could have become so much more numerous than the Nephites. The early Lamanites are pictured as being dependent on hunting; the Nephites, on farming. (See 2 Ne. 5:11, 24.) Although it is a certain rule in population studies that hunting groups cannot support nearly as many people as can farmers, more than two hundred years later the Nephite record says the Lamanites were “exceedingly more numerous” (Jarom 1:6) than the Nephites, and that pattern continues all along. Simple natural increase by births cannot account for this difference.

The same problem surfaces in Alma 43:14 where we learn that the Amulonites were “as numerous, nearly, as were the Nephites.” And yet the Amulonites had begun less than seventy years earlier when Noah’s priests carried off Lamanite women to be their wives. (See Mosiah 20.)

The answers to such puzzles must lie in situations beyond normal population growth. In this regard, the case of the early Nephites is helpful. Mosiah, father of Benjamin, fled the land of Nephi sometime before 200 b.c. with “as many as would hearken unto the voice of the Lord.” (Omni 1:13.) The record implies that only a part of the Nephites existing at that time went with Mosiah to Zarahemla.

Jarom 1:13 had already mentioned dissensions from the Nephites, no later than 360 b.c. The dissenters, like later ones, could have settled among the Lamanites, swelling their numbers while reducing the size of the Nephite group. Also, after Mosiah’s refugees went to Zarahemla, some of the Nephites left behind may have joined the Lamanites, for no further mention is made of them (unless they became the Amalekites, referred to in Alma 43:13 as dissenters but having an unexplained origin).

Archaeological evidence from all New World areas where the early Nephites and Lamanites could have lived makes clear that peoples who descended from the Jaredite era also lived during the time of Lehi’s descendants. Given Laman and Lemuel’s ambition to rule, perhaps they or their descendants ruled over and absorbed such “natives.” Nephite record keepers perhaps did not know the details of that process, but that is the best explanation that I know of for the remarkable growth in the number of Lamanites.

The case of the numerous Amulonites can be explained on similar grounds—taking control over a resident population.

An interesting note is that some such natives might have lived with or near the early Nephites. Notice that when Sherem “came … among the people of Nephi” (within the lifetime of Jacob, Lehi’s son), he “sought much opportunity” to meet Jacob. (See Jacob 7:1–3.) Yet, the entire population descended from the original Nephites could not have exceeded a hundred adults by that time. In such a tiny tribe, why had Sherem not already met Jacob—unless he was from a foreign group that had come under the rule of the Nephite king?

These cases teach us that there is simply not enough information in the scriptural record to construct a clear picture of Nephite and Lamanite population sizes over time. Nor can we estimate with surety how war, famine, dissensions, contentions, and other factors affected population growth. In short, our presently limited record discourages any attempt to interpret Nephite or Lamanite population history.

Yet there is no reason to question the population numbers in the Book of Mormon. They are all believable once we recognize some of the historical and biological factors that could have been involved.

Notice no mention of the native "others", other than the Amulonites and Jaredites.

Of course, I know this doesn't constitute a church "teaching" for Charity.

[_charity]

Sorry, but since you brought it up (and water dowsing drives me nutso) please look to this government report on water dowsing.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/water_dowsing/ ... owsing.pdf

Some water exists under the Earth's surface almost everywhere. This explains why many dowsers appear to be successful.
To locate ground water accurately, however, as to depth, quantity, and quality, a number of techniques must be used . Hydrologic,
geologic, and geophysical knowledge is needed to determine the depths and extent of the different water-bearing strata and the
quantity and quality of water found in each . The area must be thoroughly tested and studied to determine these facts. The U.S.
Geological Survey, the Federal agency with major responsibility for assessing the quantity and quality of the Nation's surface
and ground waters, believes that no single technique suffices to locate favorable water-well sites.
Numerous books and pamphlets have been written on the subject of water dowsing. Some of these publications report on
scientifically controlled experiments and investigations.From these findings,the U.S. Geological Survey has concluded that the
expense of further tests of water dowsing is not justified.

Despite almost unanimous condemnation by geologists and technicians, the practice of
waterdowsing has spread throughout America.

If something has no reliability, and is pure chance why rely on it? I don't understand that mindset at all. I think healthy skepticism is appropriate for anyone that says they can "sense" things. So, maybe it hasn't been "disproven" yet I'm not going to hire a man with a stick to walk around on my property to find water. Not happening.

I could see a ditzy look happening after the water dowser picked a spot with no water and I drilled a well relying on his stick abilities. ;)

Almost unanimous? Why not unanimous? Does that strike you a little odd? So there are geologists out there who think it works? Hmmmmm.

You don't have to hire a man with a stick. I never hired one either. His services came free because he was my dad. But he never charged anyone else either.

[_the road to hana]

But to say it was taught "in the Church": is a major falsehood. You have shown nothing that indicates teachings in the Church.

What actually constitutes, in your mind, teachings "in the Church?"

It appears to me that you have plausible deniability for virtually everything that can or has ever been taught within the confines of LDSism, because even if the person considered to be "prophet" says it, it can be denied.

Isn't that so?

If it's a past prophet, it's superceded by a present prophet. If it's a lesser GA, it's superceded by a higher up. If it's a CES employee, it's superceded by a GA. If it's God himself, he might have changed his mind.

I think the point you're continuing to dodge, Charity, is that whatever the church would have done, you'd have found a way to defend. If they'd said the Lamanites never even existed, you'd have claimed that it was simply misinformed members who were doing their own supposing who'd envisioned otherwise.

Even more disturbing, you're like too many other church members who find being creative with the truth an okay thing. That you aren't even aware of it, apparently, or sensitive to it is all the more disturbing.