bofgeography, the bow and arrow in the Book of Mormon?

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
_spotlight
_Emeritus
Posts: 1702
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:44 am

Re: bofgeography, the bow and arrow in the Book of Mormon?

Post by _spotlight »

The CCC wrote:Book of Mormon lands are Mesoamerica.

Then why aren't Book of Mormon gods on either of the following lists?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_A ... ral_beings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_M ... ral_beings
Ooops, there's the Mormon god on the Maya list, Chin. :surprised: :lol:
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee
_ClarkGoble
_Emeritus
Posts: 543
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 4:55 pm

Re: bofgeography, the bow and arrow in the Book of Mormon?

Post by _ClarkGoble »

Quasimodo wrote:So, your theory depends on a small group of Lamanites infusing into a large, existing population of Native Americans bringing their new bow technology with them? Just as an aside, I don't think a case can be made that atlatls were better military weapons than bows. Bows and arrows are much more accurate than atlatls. It's the difference between shooting a bullet from a gun and throwing a bullet from the end of a stick.


I don't have a theory here. I was just relating what the main models right now are. My point was that both theories have problems that need explained which I then listed.

I think the argument is that while bows are more accurate with less training than atlatls that atlatls actually had more force. That was partially why atlatl use persisted after the arrival of bows.

I don't believe the Book of Mormon teaches that there was a large native population existent in the Americas before the Nephites arrived. The Jaredites were all but extinct when the Nephites arrived and no mention of "Indians" was made welcoming the Nephites in the Book of Mormon. Isn't it the official position of the LDS church that all Native Americans are descended from Lamanites?


The church doesn't have an official position beyond some natives were descended from lamanites. I think the limited geographic model is fairly ubiquitous now and accepted by most of the GAs but not as an official view.

The standard apologetic view of destruction is to just say the Book of Mormon ought be judged by the standards to which it purports to be. That is an ancient document. Most ancient documents exaggerate military success/loss and say things are totally destroyed when they aren't. In any case if there were others in the land then the Jaredites could have been mixing with them. We know the muelikites coexisted with them for a time without knowing as did the Nephites. To Lamanite mixing, the Nephites didn't know what the Lamanites were doing the first few hundred years. So most likely that would explain populations. Plus of course we don't have the 116 pages and don't know what was written New Testament those.

Then, you have another problem. No bows in the Eastern US and no bows in Central and South America until much later than the peoples of Northern Canada and Alaska. This would only work if the Nephites landed in Alaska or The Yukon Territories.


Yes, if you read my comments I noted that was a problem already.

There doesn't seem to be a good work-around for you. Can you offer one?


I have no problem with there being a few things I can't explain. I don't feel the need to have to have a solution for every problem. I can't reconcile GR with QR either yet I believe in both.
_tapirrider
_Emeritus
Posts: 893
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 8:10 am

Re: bofgeography, the bow and arrow in the Book of Mormon?

Post by _tapirrider »

ClarkGoble wrote:
The church doesn't have an official position beyond some natives were descended from Lamanites.


The doctrine is still that all of America's indigenous peoples and Pacific Islanders have ancestors from Book of Mormon people. The church has not changed its official position to "some natives". When the change was made to the Book of Mormon introduction all it did was to allow other ancestors in addition to Book of Mormon people, but that scripture change never meant that only some natives are descended from Book of Mormon people. The basic claim of the church is that there was enough mixing throughout the Americas and Pacific Island people that all have direct ancestry to the Book of Mormon.
_Lemmie
_Emeritus
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:25 pm

Re: bofgeography, the bow and arrow in the Book of Mormon?

Post by _Lemmie »

ClarkGoble wrote:
The church doesn't have an official position beyond some natives were descended from Lamanites.

Wow. I have been out for a very long time. This was absolutely NOT the official position when I was at BYU. "Some natives"? My friends in the Lamanite Generation who were drawing full scholarships due to their "Lamanite" status had official letters noting the church's "official position." It was in no way some vague asessment about "some natives." They considered themselves Book of Mormon descendants, and had documentation from the LDS church asserting such. What a slap in the face this new "official position" is to Native Americans who believed in, supported, and lived their lives around this pseudo-religion.

I am ashamed to have been, no matter how briefly, a part of this scam that has decided to destroy generations of families and lives so that their members can lie so egregiously, making such offensive statements as "the church doesn't have an official position," all the while knowing full well what the "official position" used to be.

 To Lamanite mixing, the Nephites didn't know what the Lamanites were doing the first few hundred years. So most likely that would explain populations. Plus of course we don't have the 116 pages and don't know what was written New Testament those.

this is the Celestial forum, so when I say Poppycock, please understand, on behalf of my Lamanite Generation/ Native American friends, that I am thinking far, far worse about the LDS corporation. I am sickened by this pseudo-religion.
_Maksutov
_Emeritus
Posts: 12480
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:19 pm

Re: bofgeography, the bow and arrow in the Book of Mormon?

Post by _Maksutov »

Lemmie wrote:
ClarkGoble wrote:
The church doesn't have an official position beyond some natives were descended from Lamanites.

Wow. I have been out for a very long time. This was absolutely NOT the official position when I was at BYU. "Some natives"? My friends in the Lamanite Generation who were drawing full scholarships due to their "Lamanite" status had official letters noting the church's "official position." It was in no way some vague asessment about "some natives." They considered themselves Book of Mormon descendants, and had documentation from the LDS church asserting such. What a slap in the face this new "official position" is to Native Americans who believed in, supported, and lived their lives around this pseudo-religion.

I am ashamed to have been, no matter how briefly, a part of this scam that has decided to destroy generations of families and lives so that their members can lie so egregiously, making such offensive statements as "the church doesn't have an official position," all the while knowing full well what the "official position" used to be.

 To Lamanite mixing, the Nephites didn't know what the Lamanites were doing the first few hundred years. So most likely that would explain populations. Plus of course we don't have the 116 pages and don't know what was written New Testament those.

this is the Celestial forum, so when I say Poppycock, please understand, on behalf of my Lamanite Generation/ Native American friends, that I am thinking far, far worse about the LDS corporation. I am sickened by this pseudo-religion.


http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/LDS/ci_7403990

The LDS Church has changed a single word in its introduction to the Book of Mormon, a change observers say has serious implications for commonly held LDS beliefs about the ancestry of American Indians.

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe founder Joseph Smith unearthed a set of gold plates from a hill in upperstate New York in 1827 and translated the ancient text into English. The account, known as The Book of Mormon, tells the story of two Israelite civilizations living in the New World. One derived from a single family who fled from Jerusalem in 600 B.C. and eventually splintered into two groups, known as the Nephites and Lamanites.







The book's current introduction, added by the late LDS apostle, Bruce R. McConkie in 1981, includes this statement: "After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians."

The new version, seen first in Doubleday's revised edition, reads, "After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians."

LDS leaders instructed Doubleday to make the change, said senior editor Andrew Corbin, so it "would be in accordance with future editions the church is printing."

The change "takes into account details of Book of Mormon demography which are not known," LDS spokesman Mark Tuttle said Wednesday.

It also steps into the middle of a raging debate about the book's historical claims.

Many Mormons, including several church presidents, have taught that the Americas were largely inhabited by Book of Mormon peoples. In 1971, Church President Spencer W. Kimball said that Lehi, the family patriarch, was "the ancestor of all of the Indian and Mestizo tribes in North and South and Central America and in the islands of the sea."

After testing the DNA of more than 12,000 Indians, though, most researchers have concluded that the continent's early inhabitants came from Asia across the Bering Strait.

With this change, the LDS Church is "conceding that mainstream scientific theories about the colonization of the Americas have significant elements of truth in them," said Simon Southerton, a former Mormon and author of Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA and the Mormon Church.

"DNA has revealed very clearly how closely related American Indians are to their Siberian ancestors, " Southerton said in an e-mail from his home in Canberra, Australia. "The Lamanites are invisible, not principal ancestors."

LDS scholars, however, dispute the notion that DNA evidence eliminates the possibility of Lamanites. They call it "oversimplification" of the research.

On the church's official Web site, LDS.org, it says, "Nothing in the Book of Mormon precludes migration into the Americas by peoples of Asiatic origin. The scientific issues relating to DNA, however, are numerous and complex."

Mormon researcher John M. Butler and DNA expert further argues that "careful examination and demographic analysis of the Book of Mormon record in terms of population growth and the number of people described implies that other groups were likely present in the promised land when Lehi's family arrived, and these groups may have genetically mixed with the Nephites, Lamanites, and other groups. Events related in the Book of Mormon likely took place in a limited region, leaving plenty of room for other Native American peoples to have existed."

In recent years, many LDS scholars have come to share Butler's belief in what is known as the "limited geography" theory. By this view, the Nephites and Lamanites restricted their activities to portions of Central America, which would explain their absence from the general American Indian genetics.

Kevin Barney, a Mormon lawyer and independent researcher in Chicago, welcomes the introduction's word change.

"I have always felt free to disavow the language of the [Book of Mormon's] introduction, footnotes and dictionary, which are not part of the canonical scripture," said Barney, on the board of FAIR, a Mormon apologist group. "These things can change as the scholarship progresses and our understanding enlarges. This suggests to me that someone on the church's scripture committee is paying attention to the discussion."
"God" is the original deus ex machina. --Maksutov
_The CCC
_Emeritus
Posts: 6746
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2015 4:51 am

Re: bofgeography, the bow and arrow in the Book of Mormon?

Post by _The CCC »

spotlight wrote:
The CCC wrote:Book of Mormon lands are Mesoamerica.

Then why aren't Book of Mormon gods on either of the following lists?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_A ... ral_beings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_M ... ral_beings
Ooops, there's the Mormon god on the Maya list, Chin. :surprised: :lol:


Non response.
_tapirrider
_Emeritus
Posts: 893
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 8:10 am

Re: bofgeography, the bow and arrow in the Book of Mormon?

Post by _tapirrider »

Maksutov wrote:http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/LDS/ci_7403990

The LDS Church has changed a single word in its introduction to the Book of Mormon, a change observers say has serious implications for commonly held LDS beliefs about the ancestry of American Indians.

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe founder Joseph Smith unearthed a set of gold plates from a hill in upperstate New York in 1827 and translated the ancient text into English. The account, known as The Book of Mormon, tells the story of two Israelite civilizations living in the New World. One derived from a single family who fled from Jerusalem in 600 B.C. and eventually splintered into two groups, known as the Nephites and Lamanites.







The book's current introduction, added by the late LDS apostle, Bruce R. McConkie in 1981, includes this statement: "After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians."

The new version, seen first in Doubleday's revised edition, reads, "After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians."

LDS leaders instructed Doubleday to make the change, said senior editor Andrew Corbin, so it "would be in accordance with future editions the church is printing."

The change "takes into account details of Book of Mormon demography which are not known," LDS spokesman Mark Tuttle said Wednesday.

It also steps into the middle of a raging debate about the book's historical claims.

Many Mormons, including several church presidents, have taught that the Americas were largely inhabited by Book of Mormon peoples. In 1971, Church President Spencer W. Kimball said that Lehi, the family patriarch, was "the ancestor of all of the Indian and Mestizo tribes in North and South and Central America and in the islands of the sea."

After testing the DNA of more than 12,000 Indians, though, most researchers have concluded that the continent's early inhabitants came from Asia across the Bering Strait.

With this change, the LDS Church is "conceding that mainstream scientific theories about the colonization of the Americas have significant elements of truth in them," said Simon Southerton, a former Mormon and author of Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA and the Mormon Church.

"DNA has revealed very clearly how closely related American Indians are to their Siberian ancestors, " Southerton said in an e-mail from his home in Canberra, Australia. "The Lamanites are invisible, not principal ancestors."

LDS scholars, however, dispute the notion that DNA evidence eliminates the possibility of Lamanites. They call it "oversimplification" of the research.

On the church's official Web site, LDS.org, it says, "Nothing in the Book of Mormon precludes migration into the Americas by peoples of Asiatic origin. The scientific issues relating to DNA, however, are numerous and complex."

Mormon researcher John M. Butler and DNA expert further argues that "careful examination and demographic analysis of the Book of Mormon record in terms of population growth and the number of people described implies that other groups were likely present in the promised land when Lehi's family arrived, and these groups may have genetically mixed with the Nephites, Lamanites, and other groups. Events related in the Book of Mormon likely took place in a limited region, leaving plenty of room for other Native American peoples to have existed."

In recent years, many LDS scholars have come to share Butler's belief in what is known as the "limited geography" theory. By this view, the Nephites and Lamanites restricted their activities to portions of Central America, which would explain their absence from the general American Indian genetics.

Kevin Barney, a Mormon lawyer and independent researcher in Chicago, welcomes the introduction's word change.

"I have always felt free to disavow the language of the [Book of Mormon's] introduction, footnotes and dictionary, which are not part of the canonical scripture," said Barney, on the board of FAIR, a Mormon apologist group. "These things can change as the scholarship progresses and our understanding enlarges. This suggests to me that someone on the church's scripture committee is paying attention to the discussion."


The church has created its own problem with this and does not properly address it. When it made the change to allow more ancestors than just Book of Mormon people, it failed to firmly clarify that all living indigenous peoples in the Americas and the Pacific Islanders still have ancestors from the Book of Mormon. So what happened is that members have divided among themselves into various different opinions. Some now say that all are descendants through mixing, others say only some are descended from them. Now add in the divisions among members over where the stories allegedly happened. There are Heartlanders like bomgeography and others like the Mesoamerican LGT followers. The outcome is easy to see, like bofmgeography stating that two apostles were wrong in the Guatemala temple dedicatory prayers.

FAIR addressed who are descendants with this:

If Lehi had any descendants among Amerindians, then after 2600 years all Amerindians would share Lehi as an ancestor. Even if (as is probable) the Lehite group was a small drop in a larger population 'ocean' of pre-Columbian inhabitants, Lehi would have been an ancestor of virtually all the modern-day Amerindians if he has any ancestors at all.
http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon ... ts_of_Lehi

But the LDS DNA essay is not so clear about it. Why the church hasn't been direct and bold on this matter is beyond me. They have reacted to the DNA issue in a way that has left members confused and choosing their own opinions over something so fundamental to the Book of Mormon and the church, just exactly who are the descendants of the Book of Mormon people.

Patriarchal blessings given to American Indians often use words that clearly mean a direct lineage from Book of Mormon people. Non-Indian members sometimes take the attitude that the blessings aren't describing real lineage, just adoption. It pits the faith of American Indian members against non-Indian members, Indians being told they are wrong. That has happened with my wife. Mesoamerican followers have said that her blessing doesn't matter. Then along comes Heartlanders like bofmgeography, saying that even apostles were wrong about the Mayan. Mayan members would react the same as my wife has when told that the identity they have put their faith in is wrong.

This is what started me out of the church. It really isn't fair to blame members for their confusion over who the Book of Mormon people are today. The church caused this by not being clear and bold in maintaining the doctrine that has been taught since 1830.
Last edited by Guest on Thu Mar 23, 2017 10:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
_tapirrider
_Emeritus
Posts: 893
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 8:10 am

Re: bofgeography, the bow and arrow in the Book of Mormon?

Post by _tapirrider »

deleted duplicate
_ClarkGoble
_Emeritus
Posts: 543
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 4:55 pm

Re: bofgeography, the bow and arrow in the Book of Mormon?

Post by _ClarkGoble »

Lemmie wrote:
ClarkGoble wrote:The church doesn't have an official position beyond some natives were descended from Lamanites.

Wow. I have been out for a very long time. This was absolutely NOT the official position when I was at BYU. "Some natives"? My friends in the Lamanite Generation who were drawing full scholarships due to their "Lamanite" status had official letters noting the church's "official position." It was in no way some vague asessment about "some natives." They considered themselves Book of Mormon descendants, and had documentation from the LDS church asserting such. What a slap in the face this new "official position" is to Native Americans who believed in, supported, and lived their lives around this pseudo-religion.


I personally think that the nature of mixing entails most would have native blood. I'm not too sure about pacific islanders but there's at least some evidence of mixing there as well. (I think sweet potatoes and some chickens are the evidence) My point with that comment is simply that making an universal claim without solid evidence isn't wise. For instance are isolated tribes in the Amazon related? Who knows.


I am ashamed to have been, no matter how briefly, a part of this scam that has decided to destroy generations of families and lives so that their members can lie so egregiously,


You don't think that's an overreaction?
_Fence Sitter
_Emeritus
Posts: 8862
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: bofgeography, the bow and arrow in the Book of Mormon?

Post by _Fence Sitter »

ClarkGoble wrote:You don't think that's an overreaction?



How much have you read about the LDS Lamanite program specifically and how the American Indians in general were treated by the United States government,especially regarding boarding school programs and programs designed to remove Indian children from their families?

I do not think Lemmie is overreacting at all.

The method of the LDS Indian placement program was to take away children from their families, teach them a new culture and religion, educate them and then send them back into a culture into which they no longer fit. We were not helping these kids or their families, we were driving a wedge between them.

As one tribal leader put it:

"I think the cruelest trick that the white man has ever done to Indian children is to take them into adoption court, erase all of their records and send them off to some nebulous family ... residing in a white community and he goes back to the reservation and he has absolutely no idea who his relatives are, and they effectively make him a non-person and I think ... they destroy him.


It was just another in a long line of programs created by non Indians, many of which were horribly abusive, that were intended to destroy the culture of the Indians. The LDS Indian Placement program was one of the causes behind the passage of Indian Child Welfare Act, a law that governs jurisdiction over the removal of Native American (Indian) children from their families.

For more information see
Indian Child Welfare Act

For a study dealing directly with the LDS Indian Student Placement Service (ISPS) see THE CHURCH OF Jesus Christ OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS’ INDIAN STUDENT PLACEMENT SERVICE: A HISTORY by
Lynette A. Riggs


Other recommended reading would be:
Mormons and Indians : Beliefs, Policies, Programs, and Practices by Albrecht, Stan L., Chadwick, Bruce A which can be found in Contemporary Mormonism:Social Science Perspectives pg 287-309.

And for well written and excellent view of how the early Mormon settlers pretty much exterminated the native Americans living in Utah in the 1800's see:
On Zion's Mount: Mormons, Indians, and the American Landscape by Jared Farmer.

So no, I do not think Lemmie is overreacting and I have looked into this very issue. For a religious group that is founded on a book whose purported purpose was to bring God's lost children back to Him, our actual behavior toward the native Americans has been pretty much the same as any other group of American immigrants: kill them, drive them out, and or assimilate them.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
Post Reply