Simon Southerton Promoting Book Again
Simon Southerton, who is struggling hard to be a critic of the Church in a long-since dead area is back again. Maybe his book had low sales last year, so he is trying to drum up some more buyers.
Anyhow, The Age had this, in part, to say:
Last year he published a rebuttal of the Book of Mormon teachings that Native American and Polynesian ancestors came from ancient Israelite tribes who had migrated to the Americas centuries before Christ.
In all the years I’ve read the Book of Mormon?˘‚Ǩ‚Äůin all the times I’ve read it from cover to cover?˘‚Ǩ‚ÄůI must have entirely skipped over the part where it teaches “Native Americans” and “Polynesians” are descended from Israelite tribes.
Maybe if Southerton focused more on what was in the Book of Mormon and less on how members of the Church have traditionally extrapolated the Book of Mormon, it wouldn’t be an issue that he “is facing possible ex-communication”.
I wonder why didn’t wait another week. If he had, he could have done double duty by bringing about press for his new book, and celebrating the first anniversary of the last time he brought this up.
Popularity: 8% [?]
[More Help]
This is a real-life happening of a sugar Beet article.
http://www.thesugarbeet.com/issue17/topstories/mmm.html
Ben S.
21 Jul 2005 @ 14:30 | Permalink
No kidding (about this being a Sugar Beet article).
Well, my wife didn’t make it to Seattle, but she is just north of Spokane visiting her folks.
I’m thinking fond thoughts of that entire area of the world right now.
21 Jul 2005 @ 17:51 | Permalink
“In all the years I’ve read the Book of Mormon—in all the times I’ve read it from cover to cover—I must have entirely skipped over the part where it teaches ‘Native Americans’ and ‘Polynesians’ are descended from Israelite tribes.”
I don’t want to play devil’s advocate but this is pretty unequivocal:
“The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C., and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.”
Obviously, there is plenty of wiggle room for pre-existing populations, but let’s not pretend that he is coming completely out of left-field.
22 Jul 2005 @ 07:59 | Permalink
The problem, Ned, is that isn’t the Book of Mormon. At least not any more than the table contents, index, pronunciation guide or the testimonies of the witnesses are.
I’m not saying he is coming from left field. I am saying his arguments are based on how members (old and new) have used the Book of Mormon to explain the history of the indigenous peoples of the Americas and Pacific islands, not what the Book of Mormon actually teaches.
22 Jul 2005 @ 09:56 | Permalink
What evidence do you have that this is a concerted publicity effort on his part? I know you said “maybe”, but that’s a highly cynical motive to ascribe to Brother Southerton.
His book isn’t selling, so he approaches the church so they’ll try him for adultery? HUH?
22 Jul 2005 @ 13:35 | Permalink
More like “his book isn’t selling, so he approaches the media about the Church trying him for adultery”.
22 Jul 2005 @ 13:37 | Permalink
I would think it’s a remarkable thing for a church to attempt to discipline a non-attending member of seven years. That’s rather newsworthy and he has the right to tell whomever he wants about this irregularity (anad possibly warn people who are similiarly situated but haven’t yet formally left the church). If the church is starting to discipline inactives, the public has the right to know. If the church is playing dirty pool, the public has the right to know too.
25 Jul 2005 @ 09:24 | Permalink
It’s not that remarkable. He is criticising the Church (even if his premises are unfounded), and the Church disciplines its members for criticising it, attending or not.
I don’t see how it is dirty pool.
25 Jul 2005 @ 09:31 | Permalink
This wasn’t just a few members with errant ideas about the BoM. From Joseph Smith to Gordon Hinckley, the leaders of the church have always taught that the Native Americans are descendants of the Lamanites. They still include language about the “children of Lehi” in temple dedicatory prayers in South America. Whether the BoM itself claims the Lehites account for all Native Americans today (and I’m not sure how it would, since it’s supposed to deal with the ancient inhabitants) everyone from Moroni onward seems to think so.
29 Jul 2005 @ 12:15 | Permalink
Did someone say it was just a few members?
I’d be interested to read where Gordon B. Hinckley taught all indigenous peoples of the Americas are descended from Lehi. I know Spencer W. Kimball taught contrary to this.
How widespread this tradition was is irrelevant. Southerton claims the Book of Mormon teaches it, and it clearly does not.
29 Jul 2005 @ 12:26 | Permalink
I’ve read Southerton’s book, and I don’t recall him saying that somewhere in the BoM it actually says “Hello. This book is about all modern Native Americans.” Indeed, if the BoM is an ancient book, how could it possibly do so? Does the text itself even say the events take place on the American continent? (Other locations have been proposed.) Is it not doctrine that the Lehites/Jaredites lived in the Americas? The only way we know these things is because Moroni, Smith, and all successive prophet have revealed them.
29 Jul 2005 @ 13:45 | Permalink
I have not read his books, so I can only base my comments on what the media states and public letters/responses he has written, such as “DNA Genealogies of American Indians and the Book of Mormon”.
I agree that Moroni revealed to us that the Book of Mormon as a bout an ancient people upon the American continent. I agree that Smith and others have declared that revelation. Yet, I cannot find a statement by Moroni to the effect that the Cree, the Navajo, the Aymará or an endless host of other indigenous peoples are descended from Lehi.
29 Jul 2005 @ 13:59 | Permalink
I have to agree. Simon appears to have tried to manipulate the press into promoting his book with the AAP release of his pending disciplinary council. I notice he has been very unsuccessful so far in releasing the details of his excommunication on Sunday. The facts are simple – why believe a man who has openly lied in the press on 2 accounts and yet claims to tell the truth about supposed scientific DNA proof that discredits the BOM. The 2 lies he has told are that he had an affair 5 years ago – in fact it was 2. Maybe he has had more than 1 affair! The 2nd is that both parties are back with their spouse trying to get life back to normal. He may be back with his wife but the other party isn’t – their family has been left in a mess. I also note with interest the comments made by Simon about apostasy being a more serious charge than adultery. The fact that he served a mission, was married in the Temple and served as a Bishop indicates he should know that willful breaking of Celestial Marriage covenants is up there with murder in the levels of serious transgression. He is obviously unrepentant as indicated by his downplaying the seriousness of the affair. I feel very sorry for his wife and the husband of the other family (who is an active member of the Church and was a high profile leader at the time). It seems that Simon is trying to bring down as many other good people and particularly leaders through this process. I have seen nothing in his articles that is uplifting and encouraging and offering an alternative way to happiness. This shows what happens when people bow to Satan’s influence and become self-centred and want to cover their sins by lies and excuses. Maybe if he had spent more time reading the BOM and understanding it’s glorious principles and less time trying to disprove it he would be a happier man enjoying life with his family.
2 Aug 2005 @ 17:52 | Permalink
While I was attending the Mormon church I was taught that the Native Americans were the decendants of Israelites. How thw Polynesians got into the picture I don’t have a clue. I left the church long ago because of the I don’t really believe in Science Fiction and Fantasy especially when it comes to a con man looking into a hat and making up a book.
11 Aug 2005 @ 18:52 | Permalink
A lot of Mormons were (and some still are) taught the same thing. Unfortunately, it’s nothing but a bunch of assumptions, conjecture and tradition.
11 Aug 2005 @ 21:39 | Permalink
I’m still waiting for any archeological proof of the BOM or the battles on Hill whatever in NY. Any shread of evidance that the magic plates ever existed. Don’t go to the you must have faith card and God or some Angel took them away. Most religions do not have secrets and secret names ect. Most religions allow it’s people to openly participate and not use the carrot and stick method like good ole Joe. Might as well be a Scientologist. At least they admit to taking your money to get aboard the space ship. Can’t understand why supposed intelligent people believe this hog wash.
12 Aug 2005 @ 15:01 | Permalink
“I’m still waiting for any archeological proof of the BOM or the battles on Hill whatever in NY.”
Why?
12 Aug 2005 @ 15:06 | Permalink
Kevin Mathie has put together a paper that I think is useful in the question about where Lehi and his descendance are.
http://home.comcast.net/~zarahemla/lamanites.pdf
14 Aug 2005 @ 13:21 | Permalink
First, to argue that the Church hasn’t promoted and advanced the Book of Mormon as the history of the Ancient Americans and principal ancestors of the Native Americans is ludicrous. The Church’s position, until DNA evidence showed up, is that the American Indians are the Lamanites. The Church has used the terms interchangeably.
Second, the Book of Mormon does implied state that the Book of Mormon is for the American Natives. Nephi clearly describes the Indians and Lamanites in 1 Nephi 13: 33–35, which states:
33 Wherefore saith the Lamb of God: I will be merciful• unto the Gentiles, unto the visiting of the remnant of the house of Israel in great judgment.
34 And it came to pass that the angel of the Lord spake unto me, saying: Behold, saith the Lamb of God, after I have visited the remnant of the house of Israel—and this remnant of whom I speak is the seed of thy father—wherefore, after I have visited them in judgment, and smitten them by the hand of the Gentiles, and after the Gentiles do stumble exceedingly, because of the most plain and precious parts of the gospel of the Lamb which have been kept back by that abominable church, which is the mother of harlots, saith the Lamb—I will be merciful unto the Gentiles in that day, insomuch that I will bring forth unto them, in mine own power, much of my gospel•, which shall be plain and precious, saith the Lamb.
35 For, behold, saith the Lamb: I will manifest myself unto thy seed, that they shall write many things which I shall minister unto them, which shall be plain and precious; and after thy seed shall be destroyed, and dwindle in unbelief, and also the seed of thy brethren, behold, these things shall be hid up, to come forth unto the Gentiles, by the gift and power of the Lamb.
Moreover, Mormon indicated that the Native Americans are Lamanites in the fifth chapter of Mormon.
Additionally, Moroni specifically spoke to the latter-day descendants of the Lamanites in the tenth chapter of Moroni.
In the title page of the Book of Mormon, which was written by Moroni, Moroni teaches that the Book of Mormon is for the Lamanites.
Even the Lord, through Joseph Smith, stated that the purpose of the preservation of the plates was so the message therein could be given to the Lamanites. See D&C Section 3.
Later, in Section 54 , the Lord, through Joseph Smith, specifically identified the Lamanites as Indians living along the Missouri River.
The quotes from every single prophet since and including Joseph Smith through Gordon B. Hinckley are too numerous to cite.
It would be extremely disingenuous to now pretend that the Book of Mormon was not held out to be a religious document of Native Americans!
However, if the Native Americans are not Lamanites, would someone please tell me who they are so I can know to whom I should share the Book of Mormon. After all, so many Nephite prophets sacrificed so much as did Joseph Smith to preserve this sacred record of the seed of Lehi. Please tell me who they are.
19 Aug 2005 @ 16:22 | Permalink
“to argue that the Church hasn’t promoted and advanced the Book of Mormon as the history of the Ancient Americans and principal ancestors of the Native Americans is ludicrous.”
Absolutely. Anyone who says such is simply being naĂŻve and is unfamiliar with statements of past leaders.
“the Book of Mormon does implied state that the Book of Mormon is for the American Natives.”
Only if you interpret it that way. You must have missed the thread we had here on 1 Nephi 13.
“Mormon indicated that the Native Americans are Lamanites in the fifth chapter of Mormon.”
Will you please be more specific? I cannot find anywhere in that chapter where Mormon indicates all indigenous peoples in the Americas are Lamanites.
“Even the Lord…stated that the purpose of the preservation of the plates was so the message therein could be given to the Lamanites. See D&C Section 3.”
So?
“in Section 54 , the Lord…specifically identified the Lamanites as Indians [whose borders were in or near the land of] Missouri”
Let’s assume the Lord is not simply using language the Saints had not already being using themselves and so was familiar with them. Let’s assume that the Lord is speaking literally. Does this mean that all indigenous peoples outside of Missouri are/were not Lamanites?
“The quotes from every single prophet since and including Joseph Smith through Gordon B. Hinckley are too numerous to cite.”
It should not be overlooked that several of those prophets believed and taught (Kimball being the foremost) that others had/could have populated the Americas beside the Lamanites.
19 Aug 2005 @ 18:05 | Permalink
SO…
My question remains unanswered:
“Where are the Lamanites?” Who are they?”
21 Aug 2005 @ 08:06 | Permalink
The literal Lamanites, as in the direct descendents of Lehi? Beats me.
21 Aug 2005 @ 08:54 | Permalink
Mormons aren’t interested in actual history, particularly their own.
So why bother them with it?
Let them “put their shoulders to the wheel” in peace, because they’ll never listen to truth or historical fact if it contravenes their worldview.
22 Aug 2005 @ 15:47 | Permalink
Ha ha. Surely you are not suggesting that Mormons refuse to listen to Southerton because his statements are truthful or historical.
The reason Mormons refuse to listen to him is because he’s beating a dead horse. Mormons, for the most part, have long ago dropped the tradition that all peoples indigenous to the Americas are descended from Lehi.
We’re not saying Southerton is wrong in claiming there is no DNA link between Jews and indigenous peoples of South America. We’re saying, so what? We’ve been saying the same thing for years.
Unless of course you’re talking about something completely unrelated to the topic at hand and are a simple troll.
22 Aug 2005 @ 15:53 | Permalink
“He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants”
( http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1/34 )
22 Aug 2005 @ 16:04 | Permalink
“…giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent…”
I’m not sure what your point is.
22 Aug 2005 @ 16:06 | Permalink
And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance. Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper• upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever.
( http://scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/1/8-9 )
22 Aug 2005 @ 16:12 | Permalink
Do you have a point to this mystical scripture posting?
22 Aug 2005 @ 16:13 | Permalink
Kim Siever said…
“…giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent…”
I’m not sure what your point is.
Kim, it’s not my point but one supposedly made by the Angel Moroni, a resurrected being. What’s an honest person supposed to make of it? Was Moroni a confused resurrected angel? Or was Joseph Smith confused about what Moroni told him? Or was Joseph Smith confused about whether or not an angel appeared to him? Or something else? Care to explain?
22 Aug 2005 @ 16:15 | Permalink
The point is “… this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land …” (2 Ne 1:8–9)
See http://scriptures.lds.org/1_ne/13/10-15 for a closely related scripture on this topic of the separation of the people of Lehi & Mulek from the gentiles (i.e. those not of Hebrew origins).
22 Aug 2005 @ 16:21 | Permalink
This is like watching a Spiritual Special Olympics. The amazing abilities include: being able to talk a lot without saying anything, and the ability to deny truth even when it hits right between the eyes.
This whole Southerton thing was never about the BoM – this was all about a smear campaign to discredit a man of science who found his faith by telling the truth.
The hypocrisy of the LDS church regarding Southerton – will they posthumously excommunicate Joseph Smith for his many fallings and committed adulteries?
-Sideon
22 Aug 2005 @ 16:26 | Permalink
A few other LDS scriptures on this topic.
http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/28/8 – A revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet to Oliver Cowdery.
http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/54/8 – A revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet to Newel Knight.
http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/57/4 – Another revelation – be sure to checkout the footnote.
http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/32/2 – Revelation through Joseph Smith to Parley P. Pratt and Ziba Peterson
http://scriptures.lds.org/mosiah/2/2 – A large civilization of Nephites
Doesn’t LDS doctrine teach that revelations come through the Lord, and not just the confused, limited mind of men? May the Lord help us all to be humble and have no fear of the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth.
22 Aug 2005 @ 16:32 | Permalink
Kim,
I’m surprised at your comments. The Book of Mormon states right in its introduction that the Lamanites or Nephites which (according to the BOM) emigrated across the ocean from an area around Jerusalem are the principal ancestors of modern American Indians. I’ll note that this introduction was written and approved by the highest church leaders.
Obviously, much more research involving mDNA testing needs to be done. However, tests involving maternal mDNA are showing that 99.6% of all Indians tested in Central America, South America, and North America can be excluded as having any ancestral connection with Jews in the Middleast.
Any sensible person who knows about the BOM and the claims it makes understands the challenge this poses for the LDS Church. The Book of Mormon may not say so, but church leaders have claimed or insinuated for decades that Polynesians are people who sailed to these islands from America. This accounts for tremendous focus the church has placed on these islands in terms of missionary work, educational funding, and temple building. The problem is that the same mDNA testing shows these people to be descendants of Asian peoples living in Southeast Asia. In other words, the migratory pattern was west to east, not east to west.
Southerton’s research shows that if one wants to continue to believe in the BoM one can do so. However, it truly is a question of doing it on the basis of spirit and faith. There is no hard science to support it all. None.
22 Aug 2005 @ 16:33 | Permalink
If the LDS Church does not teach that Native Americans (Indians) are not Laminites, then the LDS Chuch President needs to be told this. I happened to be at a gathering of Navajos about 7 years ago when Hinkley said that we were decendents of Nephi, and he called us Lamanites. He also said the Laminites would blossom. I know it’s been a while since I heard the speach, but those things I remember clearly!
22 Aug 2005 @ 16:54 | Permalink
Some Quotes from the Prophets:
The Indians or Lamanites—The Lamanites or Indians are just as much the children of our Father and God as we are. So also are the Africans. But we are also the children of adoption through obedience to the Gospel of his Son. As we have here an assemblage of the people from other settlements, I wish to impress them with the necessity of treating the Indians with kindness, and to refrain from harboring that revengeful, vindictive feeling that many indulge in. I am convinced that as long as we harbor in us such feelings toward them, so long they will be our enemies, and the Lord will suffer them to afflict us. I certainly believe that the present affliction, which has come upon us from the Indians, is a consequence of the wickedness which dwells in the hearts of some of our brethren. If the Elders of Israel had always treated the Lamanites as they should, I do not believe that we should have had any difficulty with them at all. This is my firm conviction, and my conclusion according to the light that is in me. I believe that the Lord permits them to chasten us at the present time to convince us that we have to overcome the vindictive feelings which we have harbored towards that poor, downtrodden branch of the House of Israel. (Discourses Of Brigham Young, pg 122-123)
“We now have some half million Indian or Lamanite members in the Church…” (Spencer W. Kimball, “The Lamanite”; an address delivered at Regional Representatives’ Seminar, 1 Apr. 1977)
“The term Lamanite includes all Indians and Indian mixtures, such as the Polynesians, the Guatemalans, the Peruvians, as well as the Sioux, the Apache, the Mohawk, the Navajo, and others. Millions of you are descendants of Spaniards and Indians, and are termed mestizos, and are called after your countries, for instance: Mexicans in Mexico; Guatemalans in Guatemala; Chilianos in Chile. You Polynesians of the Pacific are called Samoan or Maori, Tahitian or Hawaiian, according to your island.” (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p. 596.)
“It has been a very interesting thing to see the descendants of Father Lehi in the congregations that have gathered in the [Guayaquil Ecuador] temple. So very many of these people have the blood of Lehi in their veins and it is just an intriguing thing to see their tremendous response and their tremendous interest.” (Quote from President Gordon B. Hinckley; Aug 7, 1999 Church News – Guayaquil Ecuador Temple dedication: ‘A wondrous day’ for members)
“AN ANCIENT RECORD – Three years later was revealed to him, in a similar way, an ANCIENT RECORD, a book of metallic plates having the appearance of gold, and CONTAINING A HISTORY OF AMERICA ages prior to its discovery by Columbus. The revealer of these plates, who proclaimed himself a messenger from God, gave his name as Moroni, and stated that he was one of many prophets who, when in mortality, had ministered to a people called Nephites, a branch of the house of Israel, formerly inhabiting this land. The NEPHITES were the CIVILIZED ANCESTORS OF the DEGENERATE LAMANITES, OR AMERICAN INDIANS. The writings of these prophets, compiled and abridged by Mormon, the father of Moroni, had been buried in a hill anciently called Cumorah, in which place of deposit the youthful prophet, directed by the angel, discovered them. By means of interpreters Urim and Thummim found with the plates, he translated the hieroglyphic characters of the Nephite record, and the result was the Book of Mormon, published to the world early in 1830. The title page of the volume contains the testimony of three witnesses, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris, who solemnly aver that an angel showed them the plates after Joseph Smith had translated them, and that they heard a voice from heaven declare that the translation was by the gift and power of God. Eight other witnesses testify that they saw the plates and handled them while they were in the prophet’s possession, prior to being reclaimed by the angel.” … “In conclusion, let us say, as representing the body of religious worshipers over whom we have the honor to preside: We cherish none but sentiments of good will toward mankind. We regard all men as our brothers, children of the universal Father, and for their benefit and for his honor and glory we and our fellow servants are laboring, and expect to labor to the close of our mortal lives; passing hence to continue, in the world of spirits, the work of salvation inaugurated here. Peace be unto all, in the name of our Lord and Savior! (JOSEPH F. SMITH, ANTHON H. LUND, JOHN HENRY SMITH, Messages of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 1833-1964.; Introd., notes, and index, by James R. Clark)
“With pride I tell those who come to my office that a Lamanite is a descendant of one Lehi who left Jerusalem six hundred years before Christ and with his family crossed the mighty deep and landed in America. And Lehi and his family became the ancestors of all of the Indian and Mestizo tribes in North and South and Central America and in the islands of the sea, for in the middle of their history there were those who left America in ships of their making and went to the islands of the sea… Now the Lamanites number about sixty million; they are in all of the states of America from Tierra del Fuego all the way up to Point Barrows, and they are in nearly all the islands of the sea from Hawaii south to southern New Zealand.” (Spencer W. Kimball, “Of Royal Blood,” Ensign July, 1971)
The Book of Mormon is a record of the forefathers of our western tribes of Indians; having been found through the ministration of an holy angel, and translated into our own language by the gift and power of God, after having been hid up in the earth for the last fourteen hundred years, containing the word of God which was delivered unto them. By it we learn that our western tribes of Indians are descendants from that Joseph who was sold into Egypt, and that the land of America is a promised land unto them, and unto it all the tribes of Israel will come, with as many of the Gentiles as shall comply with the requisitions of the new covenant. (TEACHINGS OF THE PROPHET JOSEPH SMITH, pg 17)
It has been said by many of the learned and wise men, or historians, that the Indians or aborigines of this continent, are of the scattered tribes of Israel. It has been conjectured by many others, that the aborigines of this continent are not of the tribes of Israel, but the ten tribes have been led away into some unknown regions of the north. Let this be as it may, the prophecy I have just quoted “will fetch them,” in the last days, and place them in the land which their fathers possessed. And you will find in the 7th verse of the 30th chapter, quoted, “And the Lord thy God will put all these curses upon thine enemies, and on them that hate thee, which persecuted thee.” (TEACHINGS OF THE PROPHET JOSEPH SMITH, pg 85)
Much has been said and done of late by the general government in relation to the Indians (Lamanites) within the territorial limits of the United States. One of the most important points in the faith of the Church of the Latter-day Saints, through the fullness of the everlasting Gospel, is the gathering of Israel (of whom the Lamanites constitute a part) that happy time when Jacob shall go up to the house of the Lord, to worship Him in spirit and in truth, to live in holiness; when the Lord will restore His judges as at the first, and His counselors as at the beginning; when every man may sit under his own vine and fig tree, and there will be none to molest or make afraid; when He will turn to them a pure language, and the earth will be filled with sacred knowledge, as the waters cover the great deep; when it shall no longer be said, the Lord lives that brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt, but the Lord lives that brought up the children of Israel from the land of the north, and from all the lands whither He has driven them. That day is one, all important to all men. (TEACHINGS OF THE PROPHET JOSEPH SMITH, pg 92)
22 Aug 2005 @ 17:24 | Permalink
So, Kim, which of the following applies to you? Pick all that apply.
A) You’re less than 30 years old
B) You were a convert less than 30 years ago
C) You suffered sever head trauma that made you forget anything earlier than 30 years ago
D) You haven’t read the D&C very closely
E) You put the speculations and excuses of FARMS, FAIR and their ilk ahead of the pronouncements of the Prophets
If you were in the church a few years back, and had your wits about you, you wouldn’t make the laughable claim that the idea ALL native peoples of the New World are literal and direct descendants of Lamanites is just a traditional extrapolation of the BoM.
No, if you were a sentient being in the church during, say, the Kimball administration, you would be sitting enraptured while the Lord’s Anointed Prophet, Seer and Revelator preached that Lamanites he met on the Navajo reservation were actually turning white and delightsome.
Or you would have stood in line for a performance of the Lamanite Generation, featuring talented Native Americans and Polynesians.
Or, like me, you might have been sent on a mission dedicated to preaching the Gospel to the Lamanites (in my case, western Canada), where you would present lessons, prepared by the missionary department and approved by the First Presidency themselves, that claimed over and over that the Indians of North and South America were descendants of Book of Mormon people and entitled to the same royal birthright — which is perfectly in line with what Joseph Smith and every prophet until the past few decades taught.
But let’s look at the Scriptures — you know, the True Word of the Lord. Check out D&C 28:8–9, 14 where Oliver Cowdery and Hiram Page are sent to preach the Gospel to the Lamanites. Wow, actual Lamanites! And were were they? In some remote yet-to-be discovered region of Mesoamerica? No.
Or let’s look at D&C 54:8 where the Saints are instructed by the Lord himself to flee “unto the land of Missouri, unto the borders of the Lamanites.” Notice that the Lord didn’t say, “unto the borders of people who are so intermixed with other prehistoric populations that I’m only using ‘Lamanite’ figuratively.”
No, the idea that modern native peoples of the Americas ARE NOT direct, literal, blood descendants of the Lamanites is an excuse invented recently in an attempt to weasel out of the lack of confirming evidence and the growing pile of disconfirming evidence.
22 Aug 2005 @ 17:34 | Permalink
I have been in the church for 40 years. I went on a mssion, and to the temple etc. I am educated (Ph.D). I know the doctrine and have read the Book of Mormon many times.
If native Americans aren’t the principal decendants of the Lamanites then the Book of Mormon is false and Joseph Smith was a fraud. Period.
Go read the Book again! Have the personal integrity to admit you are wrong.
22 Aug 2005 @ 17:57 | Permalink
“it’s not my point”
I wasn’t referring to the point made by the scripture. I was referring to the point made by using the scripture in your comment.
“closely related scripture on this topic of the separation of the people of Lehi & Mulek from the gentiles”
And of those already inhabiting the promised land?
“this was all about a smear campaign to discredit a man of science who found his faith by telling the truth.”
Huh? I think you’re forgetting you was behind the campaign. First of all, it was Souherton who had developed the exposĂ©. We’re not saying what he claimed wasn’t truth; we’re saying he’s thirty years too late.
“A few other LDS scriptures on this topic.”
None of the first four scriptures you cited state that all indigenous peoples of the Americas are descended from Lehi.
“A large civilization of Nephites”
How large? Larger than New York City? Larger than India? Larger than St. George, Utah?
“The Book of Mormon…introduction [states] that the Lamanites or Nephites which (according to the BOM) emigrated across the ocean from an area around Jerusalem are the principal ancestors of modern American Indians.”
So? Like I said, many people believed that all indigenous people in the Americas were descended from Lehi. Just because a lot of people believe something doesn’t magically create a new passage in the book of Mormon. Again, Simon Southerton claimed the Book of Mormon taught that all indigenous peoples of the Americas are descended from Lehi. The Book of Mormon never makes this claim.
“I’ll note that this introduction was written and approved by the highest church leaders.”
Do you have a source for this claim?
“tests involving maternal mDNA are showing that 99.6% of all Indians tested in Central America, South America, and North America can be excluded as having any ancestral connection with Jews in the Middleast.”
Okay. I am not disagreeing with that.
“Any sensible person who knows about the BOM and the claims it makes understands the challenge this poses for the LDS Church.”
Sigh. The Book of Mormon does not claim what Southerton says it claims.
“There is no hard science to support it all.”
Exactly the point of the post I made on this topic last year.
“If the LDS Church does not teach that Native Americans (Indians) are not Laminites, then the LDS Chuch President needs to be told this.”
Habits are hard to break when you’re 95.
22 Aug 2005 @ 18:05 | Permalink
“When Columbus came, these descendants of the Book of Mormon peoples and those with whom they had mixed numbered in the millions and covered the islands of the Pacific and the Americas from Point Barrow to Tierra del Fuego. …There are nearly 130 million Lamanites worldwide…I rejoice that it has been my privilege to carry the gospel to the Lamanites from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic, from the reaches of Canada to southern Chile, and in the islands from Hawaii to New Zealand.” – Spencer W. Kimball, “Our Paths Have Met Again, Ensign, Dec. 1975
“With pride I tell those who come to my office that a Lamanite is a descendant of one Lehi who left Jerusalem some 600 years before Christ and with his family crossed the mighty deep and landed in America. And Lehi and his family became the ancestors of ALL of the Indian and Mestizo tribes in North AND South AND Central America and in the islands of the sea, for in the middle of their history there were those who left America in ships of their making and went to the islands of the sea.”—Spencer W. Kimball, “Of Royal Blood,” Ensign, July 1971.
So, you’re right but somehow Pres. Kimball, prophet, seer and revelator, missed the obvious? Really?
22 Aug 2005 @ 18:37 | Permalink
If you believe the Prophets of the church are actually prophets and that the Ensign prints the word of God by the prophets then you can’t argue about American Indians being Lamanites. Here are some quotes.
“We now have some half million Indian or Lamanite members in the Church…” (Spencer W. Kimball, “The Lamanite”; an address delivered at Regional Representatives’ Seminar, 1 Apr. 1977)
“The term Lamanite includes all Indians and Indian mixtures, such as the Polynesians, the Guatemalans, the Peruvians, as well as the Sioux, the Apache, the Mohawk, the Navajo, and others. Millions of you are descendants of Spaniards and Indians, and are termed mestizos, and are called after your countries, for instance: Mexicans in Mexico; Guatemalans in Guatemala; Chilianos in Chile. You Polynesians of the Pacific are called Samoan or Maori, Tahitian or Hawaiian, according to your island.” (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p. 596.)
“It has been a very interesting thing to see the descendants of Father Lehi in the congregations that have gathered in the [Guayaquil Ecuador] temple. So very many of these people have the blood of Lehi in their veins and it is just an intriguing thing to see their tremendous response and their tremendous interest.” (Quote from President Gordon B. Hinckley; Aug 7, 1999 Church News – Guayaquil Ecuador Temple dedication: ‘A wondrous day’ for members)
“AN ANCIENT RECORD – Three years later was revealed to him, in a similar way, an ANCIENT RECORD, a book of metallic plates having the appearance of gold, and CONTAINING A HISTORY OF AMERICA ages prior to its discovery by Columbus. The revealer of these plates, who proclaimed himself a messenger from God, gave his name as Moroni, and stated that he was one of many prophets who, when in mortality, had ministered to a people called Nephites, a branch of the house of Israel, formerly inhabiting this land. The NEPHITES were the CIVILIZED ANCESTORS OF the DEGENERATE LAMANITES, OR AMERICAN INDIANS. The writings of these prophets, compiled and abridged by Mormon, the father of Moroni, had been buried in a hill anciently called Cumorah, in which place of deposit the youthful prophet, directed by the angel, discovered them. By means of interpreters Urim and Thummim found with the plates, he translated the hieroglyphic characters of the Nephite record, and the result was the Book of Mormon, published to the world early in 1830. The title page of the volume contains the testimony of three witnesses, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris, who solemnly aver that an angel showed them the plates after Joseph Smith had translated them, and that they heard a voice from heaven declare that the translation was by the gift and power of God. Eight other witnesses testify that they saw the plates and handled them while they were in the prophet’s possession, prior to being reclaimed by the angel.” … “In conclusion, let us say, as representing the body of religious worshipers over whom we have the honor to preside: We cherish none but sentiments of good will toward mankind. We regard all men as our brothers, children of the universal Father, and for their benefit and for his honor and glory we and our fellow servants are laboring, and expect to labor to the close of our mortal lives; passing hence to continue, in the world of spirits, the work of salvation inaugurated here. Peace be unto all, in the name of our Lord and Savior! (JOSEPH F. SMITH, ANTHON H. LUND, JOHN HENRY SMITH, Messages of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 1833-1964.; Introd., notes, and index, by James R. Clark)
“With pride I tell those who come to my office that a Lamanite is a descendant of one Lehi who left Jerusalem six hundred years before Christ and with his family crossed the mighty deep and landed in America. And Lehi and his family became the ancestors of all of the Indian and Mestizo tribes in North and South and Central America and in the islands of the sea, for in the middle of their history there were those who left America in ships of their making and went to the islands of the sea… Now the Lamanites number about sixty million; they are in all of the states of America from Tierra del Fuego all the way up to Point Barrows, and they are in nearly all the islands of the sea from Hawaii south to southern New Zealand.” (Spencer W. Kimball, “Of Royal Blood,” Ensign July, 1971)
22 Aug 2005 @ 19:40 | Permalink
“which of the following applies to you?”
Actually, Al, none of them.
“Check out D&C 28:8–9, 14 [see also D&C 54:8] where Oliver Cowdery and Hiram Page are sent to preach the Gospel to the Lamanites.”
Sigh. Ok. I guess people aren’t going to read previous comments I made regarding this scripture, so I’ll post it again.
Let’s assume the Lord is not simply using language the Saints had not already being using themselves and so was familiar with them. Let’s assume that the Lord is speaking literally. Does this mean that all indigenous peoples outside of Missouri are/were not Lamanites?
“the idea that modern native peoples of the Americas ARE NOT direct, literal, blood descendants of the Lamanites is an excuse invented recently in an attempt to weasel out of the lack of confirming evidence and the growing pile of disconfirming evidence.”
Despite your labelling it an excuse, I agree with this idea. Past members (including leader) believed and taught this idea that was not based on scripture. Now that science has shown it is not possible, more members are realising the ridiculousness of such a stand.
Oh, and do you think we can withhold on name calling here. I enjoy a good debate, but I prefer the civil type.
“If native Americans aren’t the principal decendants of the Lamanites then the Book of Mormon is false and Joseph Smith was a fraud. Period.”
Huh? I honestly fail to see how this would cause Joseph Smith to be a fraud. It certainly wouldn’t make the Book of Mormon false since the book doesn’t assert this. Southerton thought the same way you are speaking, and now he isn’t a member of the Church.
22 Aug 2005 @ 20:48 | Permalink
“So, you’re right but somehow Pres. Kimball, prophet, seer and revelator, missed the obvious? Really?”
“If you believe the Prophets of the church are actually prophets and that the Ensign prints the word of God by the prophets then you can’t argue about American Indians being Lamanites.”
First of all, what I have been saying is nothign new. It has been maintained by many members for years. It has nothign to do with me being right.
Second, we need to realise that not every word that leaves the mouth of a prophet is scripture. Just because someone becomes a prophet does not mena they are no longer entitled to personal opinion, to hold on to long-held traditions. It does not mean they are in constant communication with God and every word they speak is God’s word.
Can you establish that when President Kimball made those comments he was speaking as a prophet, a seer, or a revelator?
“So very many of these people have the blood of Lehi in their veins and it is just an intriguing thing to see their tremendous response and their tremendous interest.”
Intersting that President Hinckley did not say that every one of them was descended from Lehi. Perhaps at 89, his traditions are starting to soften as well.
22 Aug 2005 @ 20:59 | Permalink
Kim said:
Can you establish that when President Kimball made those comments he was speaking as a prophet, a seer, or a revelator?
Kim, in all honesty, I find the mental gymnastics you have to go through to maintain your faith exhausting and sadly, ridiculous. Having said that, I must confess that I was as you now are. Another, and more plausible explanation, is that Joseph Smith did not write a history of a real people. The evidence, which faith cannot ignore, is overwhelming against the proposition. Is it possible that the Book of Mormon speaks of a real and historic people? Yes, its is possible, but not probable. Do you understand the difference? Faith cannot ignore real facts. Sometimes the things people believe are wrong. What you are trying to do now is spit hairs. You know that don’t you? It’s just not the DNA, its everything, the horses, the grapes, the nineteenth century approach to life, the plagarisms, the poor grammar, the changes in doctrine, the lack of credible witnesses, etc.
You will be happier once you can accept real truth and not the fictional faith promoting fantasy you are clinging to. Your time will come.
Members such as you can only accept that a prophet speaks as a prophet when those words conform to your sense of truth. When a prophets words cease to have relevance, suddenly that stop speaking as a prophet. You see how convenient that is for people like you? But it isn’t honest in any true meaning of that term.
22 Aug 2005 @ 22:21 | Permalink
You don’t know me at all then. You see, for me, the importance of the Book of Mormon isn’t about whether it is about real people or not. It’s not about whether the horses and elephants it refers to are the horses and elephants we know or some other entirely different animals.
For me, the Book of Mormon is nothing more than a second witness of Christ. For me, I get very little out of the zealousness of Captain Moroni or the colonialistic/self-righteous nature of the Nephites. For me, what I get out of the Book of Mormon is how to be a better person, how to accept Jesus as my Saviour, how to understand the pains Jesus went through to save my soul, and how to rejoice in the potential I have to one day live in the presence of God.
Could the Book of Mormon be complete fiction? Maybe. Do I care? Not really. It has changed my life; made me a better person. I have seen it change the lives of many others.
22 Aug 2005 @ 22:58 | Permalink
You’re right. I don’t know you, but just by the comments you have made. So it sounds like you largely agree with Dr. Southerton. He came to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon was a fictional work from the 19th century. However, for him, it was difficult, impossible, to continue serving as a bishop because, has Pres. Hinckley has so often said, if the Book of Mormon isn’t true then Joseph Smith was a fraud. Why do you think Pres. Hinckley keeps throwing down that challenge? I would be curious as to your thoughts as you struggle to find meaning in a book that is largely irrelevant and outdated. I will agree with you somewhat. There are passages in the Book of Mormon which are inspiring, such as King Benjamin’s address but most of it is irrelevant, difficult to read and warlike. There are other fictional works that reach me more completely than the Book of Mormon.
If the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction, then what about other teachings and claims by Joseph Smith.
23 Aug 2005 @ 06:59 | Permalink
This bizarre “we never taught that”-athon that now constitutes mormon doctrine is outrageously disingenous.
The idea that Native Americans were Lamanites has always been a central belief of mormonism and everybody knows that.
To deny this is reprehensible.
23 Aug 2005 @ 07:11 | Permalink
Who’s denying that it was a central belief in Mormonism?
23 Aug 2005 @ 07:19 | Permalink
I agree with Southerton in that I beleive the claim that the Book of Mormon states all indegenous peoples of the Americas are descended from Lehi is false.
Do not get me wrong. I do not believe the Book of Mormon to be a work of fiction. I sincerely beleive it was written by ancient prophets and translated by the power of God through Joseph Smith.
In addition, though I get less out of the wars and such statements as “my father dwelt in a tent”, I still think there is value in the stories of the Book of Momon, as well as the sermons.
I do not find it at all difficult to read. Maybe it has to do with how many times I have read it; I don’t know.
23 Aug 2005 @ 08:36 | Permalink
Kim:
You sound like a decent person. So I hope you haven’t taken some of the comments here harshly. I have read the Book of Mormon numerous times and it was even key to my learning Spanish as a missionary. Currently I am serving in the Bishopric of my ward. But it has been impossible for me to bury my head in the sand and proclaim the divinity of a book which is so plainly not what it has been purported to be. Coming to the realization was a painful experience for me. Now days, I am much more at ease with that knowledge. I am afraid that many members of the chuch are in for a painful journey as they are presented with real evidence that will force them to question the unquestionable – that the church isn’t what it claims to be.
Some will go through depression, other will remain in denial as is often the case of persons suffering from cognitive dissonance. It sounds as if you have begun that journey. You put more stock in the ideas of “scholars” at FARMS and FAIR than the words of men we sustained as prophets, seers and revelators. Doesn’t that make you question yourself at all? Since when did we sustain Dan Peterson as a prophet? I have been dissappointed that our church leadership hasn’t spoken about these challenges in a direct manner. But what I think is that they are taking a wait and see approach. In the end, as more DNA is tested and confirmed to be Asian in origin, there will be no people left who can be of Hebrew descent. At some point the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve will be forced to receive a revelation which will state that Joseph Smith’s word was not a literal translation, but an inspired story. Maybe that same revelation will address Section 132 and polygamy as well.
23 Aug 2005 @ 08:57 | Permalink
“You sound like a decent person.”
Thank you.
“I hope you haven’t taken some of the comments here harshly.”
Not at all.
“But it has been impossible for me to bury my head in the sand and proclaim the divinity of a book which is so plainly not what it has been purported to be.”
This is precisely why I do not regard it to be more than what it is. For example, at one point I used to regard it as a record of the ancestors of all the indigenous peoples of the Americas. I found myself trying to defend criticism of the Book of Mormon based on archaeology, sociology, biology, etc. I also found it to be a never ending battle. Several years ago, I came to the realisation that the Book of Mormon is not a book of science. It is a testament of Jesus Christ and His gospel. I no longer try to use the Book of Mormon to link our religion to the Incas, or discredit the Bering Strait theory because of conflicts with the Book of Mormon. I no longer try to reconcile.
I find my life to be far less stressful because of that decision. In addition, this realisation has helped to analyse my beliefs and determine which ones were based on popular traditions and which were based on actual scripture. To me, the gospel has become far simpler than it was when I served my mission years ago.
Now, through my blog, I try to get other members of the Church to critically analyse their own beliefs. I hope others are able to clear their minds as I have been able to.
I am not on a journey to question what the Church claims itself to be. I’ve been through my questioning stage, but it was not something as trivial as whether the way the Church portrays itself or the way members portray it is correct. I questioned something much more foundational and fundamental.
Years ago, I went through a very faith-trying experience that lasted for a very long time. I won’t go into specifics, but I will say that as a result of this experience, I questioned the existence of God. My prayers were not being answered, and I felt abandoned and very alone. My actions at church were just that: actions. I went through the motions every Sunday, yet finding myself growing ever more agnostic.
At some point, I had another experience. This one helped to realise that I was not abandoned and that God was very real. His existence had become very clear to me.
It was a very difficult time for me emotionally and mentally and caused my wife a lot of worry. The entire experience, however, helped to realise my religious priorities. what became most important to me was God and Jesus. Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, the Church, et al became very secondary; they became vehicles for me to become closer to God and to exemplify more the life of our Saviour.
I became less intent on pleasing priesthood leaders and more intent on pleasing God. I placed less importance on outward signs of obedience (like wearing white shirts, shaving, yadda, yadda) and more about inward allegiance (home teaching sincerely, prayerfully preparing talks, etc). I shed all the fluff of popular Mormonism and became attracted to the core principles of it. I became less interested in Church-produced goals (like the current BOM reading one by President Hinckley) and more interested in personal ones.
Interestingly enough, it was this experience that helped me to get more out of the scriptures.
I do not put any more stock in the words of scholars than I do the leaders of the church. I take all I read and use it to determine how it affects what I believe. I find truth in the prophets, in some of the words of scholars, in science journals and other sources.
One of the reasons I do so is because it helps me to weed out the opinions of prophets and their revelations. It seems ludicrous to us in 2005 that anyone would believe, for example, that people live on the moon. Yet that is precisely what Joseph Smith taught. We know now that ti was his personal opinion. If we get too caught u in trying to reconcile every word that comes from the mouth of the prophet we will either fall away or dilute our beliefs to the point where we don’t know what we believe.
23 Aug 2005 @ 09:40 | Permalink
I agree with the bishopric member. Kim is going through the same cognitive dissonance that I and so many other LDS and former LDS members travel through.
As a former Mormon, I now see that this the mental gymnastics required to retain ones belief in the Book of Mormon is in no way unique to the Mormon faith.
Several years ago a very nice Jehovah’s Witness couple came to visit me and attempted to convert me to their religion. Using the internet I was able to show them, from past copies of The Watchtower and Awake!, that Watchtower leaders had made tons of false preditions about the end of the world. One leader, “Judge” Joseph Rutherford had even built a special house in California for the ancient prophets to return to in 1925.
What answer did they have to the chaotic leadership patterns of their past leaders? It went something like this:
“Those men were sincere but they had less light on the subject. We have greater light today.”
If you REALLY want to believe in the Book of Mormon, the Watchtower, Scientology, UFO cults, Creationism, etc…..you will find your FARMS.
23 Aug 2005 @ 09:47 | Permalink
“Kim is going through…cognitive dissonance”
Actually, the correct tense would be “Kim went through cognitive dissonance”.
23 Aug 2005 @ 09:52 | Permalink
Kim:
Thanks for the response. I am sure you have undergone some emotional experiences. Good luck on your journey. Both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young taught men lived on the Moon and Sun (and apparently looked like Quakers!). Sure they were wrong. Were they speaking as prophets? Two takes on that. Yes, but the members of the church had no way of knowing because scientific knowledge hadn’t revealed the true nature of those sphere but the members beleived anyway. No, both were expressing popular views of the day. (Some would say that the Book of Mormon is nothing more than an expression of the popular and controversial ideas of the early 19th century).
It sounds like you approach church like a lunch buffet. You feel free to pick what you want to believe and reject the ridiculous. I have no problem with your approach, as if it would matter anyway. But this approach is inconsistent with the message of Mormonism, that God reveals his truth through modern day prophets. The influence of the Holy Ghost has proven to be less than an ideal way to decipher whether a prophet speaks as a prophet or not. I have had warm inside feelings about things that latter turned out to be wrong. So how am I to judge the words of the prophets? The only solution I can find is to hold them accountable for all their words. However, today’s wiser leaders are saying less and less as the issues become more defined.
I am very tired of hearing: “I don’t know if we’ve ever taught that” and “I don’t know” “I am sustained as such” etc. What do we believe, do we believe anything at all. Are prophets nothing more than spin doctors? In an age where direction is needed and the challenges are great the heavens are silent because the prophets have closed up shop and are waiting for what science reveals so they won’t be wrong again.
Sorry for the rant.
23 Aug 2005 @ 09:57 | Permalink
This is one of the major problems with you Mormons. You have the weasel out clause. Did he speak it as a prophet or as a man? A prophet is a prophet and if he does not speak the word of God at all times he is not a prophet. References to this may be found in Deuteronomy.
I was taught all my life that the Ensign is scripture for our Day. I would also hope at the dedication of a temple that a prophet was speaking as a prophet by the spirit and not just as a man. Would you not agree?
23 Aug 2005 @ 09:57 | Permalink
“Actually, the correct tense would be ‘Kim went through cognitive dissonance’.”
Well when you say this:
“Do not get me wrong. I do not believe the Book of Mormon to be a work of fiction. I sincerely beleive it was written by ancient prophets and translated by the power of God through Joseph Smith.”
But also say this:
“You see, for me, the importance of the Book of Mormon isn’t about whether it is about real people or not. It’s not about whether the horses and elephants it refers to are the horses and elephants we know or some other entirely different animals……Could the Book of Mormon be complete fiction? Maybe. Do I care? Not really…”
It makes me think you are still working through. Nothing wrong with still being on the journey. You may end up like a friend of mine who is an Institute Director and a bishop. He stays in Mormonism not so much because it’s true but because he’s able to get many good things out of it in the ward in which he lives. Besides, he tells me that if he did leave the church he would become an atheist. Perhaps one day he will.
I respect his path and I respect yours.
23 Aug 2005 @ 10:03 | Permalink
“A prophet is a prophet and if he does not speak the word of God at all times he is not a prophet.”
That’s a crock. If President Hinckley is sitting at supper and said, “This roast tastes like rubber”, is that prophetic? It’s ridiculous to expect a prophet to abandon all personal opinions and only speak the word of God at all times. Believing something like this quickly leads to making prophets infallible; a very dangerous idea.
“I was taught all my life that the Ensign is scripture for our Day.”
So was I. But until I raise my hand to accept it as such (as the saints did for past revelations), I no longer view it that way. Besides, very view articles in the Ensign are even from prophets.
“I would also hope at the dedication of a temple that a prophet was speaking as a prophet by the spirit and not just as a man. Would you not agree?”
Perhaps, but a temple dedication is a prayer of pleading, not a revelation from God.
23 Aug 2005 @ 10:11 | Permalink
“It makes me think you are still ‘working through.’”
The key though is that I did not say, “the Book of Mormon might be fiction, but I am sill struggling with that idea”. I said the possibility exists that it could be fiction, but it makes no difference to me. My decision has been made. There is no dissonance.
23 Aug 2005 @ 10:14 | Permalink
“It sounds like you approach church like a lunch buffet. You feel free to pick what you want to believe and reject the ridiculous.”
Sort of, but not quite. I certainly reject the ridiculous, but what I beleive has less to do with what I have chosen and more to do with how I have confirmed it.
23 Aug 2005 @ 10:16 | Permalink
A temple dedicatory prayer has been taught to have been received by revelation and is different than other prayers or pleadings.
See:http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm$xhitlist_q=%5BRank+500%5D%28%5BField+general+conference%3Atemple%20dedication%20revelation%5D%29$xhitlist_x=Advanced$xhitlist_s=relevance-weight$xhitlist_d=Magazines/ensign$xhitlist_hc=%5BXML%5D%5Bkwic%2C0%5D$xhitlist_xsl=xhitlist.xsl$xhitlist_vpc=first$xhitlist_sel=title%3Bpath%3Bcontent-type%3Bhome-title%3Bhit-context%3Bfield%3Azr%3Bfield%3ARef
23 Aug 2005 @ 10:19 | Permalink
Kim:
I suspect your decision is a product of cognitive dissonance. Many who believe various things must invent a new fact in order to survive traumatic discoveries which challenge old beliefs. Instead of accepting the obvious, persons who suffer from cognitive dissonance accept a new fable to maintain belief in an old and discredited belief. We are not the only ones who do this. Many religious practicioners go through this. It just interesting to watch happen in others. We can quickly view others who go through this make believe, but when it is happening to us, we become blind. Funny but tragic.
23 Aug 2005 @ 10:23 | Permalink
Like I said, “the correct tense would be ‘Kim went through cognitive dissonance’”.
23 Aug 2005 @ 10:26 | Permalink
Kim,
You might think that you have arrived at a final conclusion but come on! Your only 31 years old! At 34 I left Mormonism and all of organized religion and became an agnostic. At 42 I still feel the same way but I realize that I may (and probably will) change in some way if I live to a ripe old age.
Mormonism changes also. You need to prepare yourself for that. It could be possible that one day 30 years from now the Book of Mormon will be looked upon as “inspired fiction” or dropped altogether as Mormonism continues it’s march toward becoming a mainline Protestant Church. (And it is doing that. I’m a Methodist ministers son…I can see it!)
At any rate, I was in 7 Elders Quorum Presidencies, twice as President. I don’t envy having the hometeaching mokey on my back anymore! I wish you the best of luck with that!
23 Aug 2005 @ 10:27 | Permalink
What does age have to do with it? When I nearly left Mormonism and God, I was only 24. Just because you waited until your thirties does not mean everyone will.
I don’t have the home teaching monkey on my back. The home teachers do. I do not feel guilty in my PPI with the bishop or the stake presidency if home teaching is low. I report the efforts we take as a presidency to make home teaching effective, but the onus always falls back to the home teachers. No guilt here.
23 Aug 2005 @ 10:32 | Permalink
I am not the one who posted regarding age, but I do agree that age has a lot to do with it.
You have been private regarding your questioning of church doctrine. As you become older and have more life experiences, more than what you have thus far experienced, you will see things differently. It happens.
I will say that you are very competent for someone who is 31. But you still cling to your security blanket.
23 Aug 2005 @ 10:43 | Permalink
It’s not a big deal. I have heard these sort of things my whole adult life. I am always too young. Maybe when I am on my death bed and grey and balding, I’ll finally be taken seriously. But whatever. I know what I’ve experienced, and that is all that matters. People can say what they want and make whatever assumptions they want about me, but no one but me (well, okay, God, too) truly knows me.
23 Aug 2005 @ 10:47 | Permalink
In fact, I am the world’s expert on me.
15 Feb 2006 @ 18:43 | Permalink
[...] I expressed gratitude for the story and its proliferation among media outlets and my hope that it may convince Mormons to stop treating tradition as doctrine, particularly the belief that indigenous peoples of the Americas are all Lehitic descendants (literally, Lamanites). [...]
18 Feb 2006 @ 09:06 | Permalink
After 39 years as a Church member, it came as a sad day when I discovered that, no matter how great the doctrine may be, no matter what great things the Church may do, it is unfortunately, fiction. As sad as that, once I realized Mormonism was fiction, all of Christianity came tumbling down behind it.
I believe in God, in MOST of the doctrines that the Church has taught me. However, anything to do with Joseph Smith, or man’s involvement at any level, is pure fiction.
I do not believe in Jesus as the Savior. He may have lived, may have taught, but he was not resurrected. There’s obviously something to all of what man has rolled together to call religion, but I just do not buy the package any longer.
Simon Southerton only solidified my position. I didn’t even know he or his book existed until after I came to my own conclusions. It was refreshing to see men like him and Thomas Murphy actually using their brains and not only their hearts.
For what it’s worth…
2 Mar 2006 @ 07:30 | Permalink
Clark
I am so sorry.
My testimony of Jesus Christ is very real and I know that He is my Saviour, and although Joseph Smith had his failings too, I know also that he was a prophet of God. I can’t explain it, but nothing, no research that may come out to defeat these beliefs (or attempt to) can change the fact that my testimony is very real of these things and I have always known it.
I hope you do have peace in your relationship with Heavenly Father.
2 Mar 2006 @ 08:59 | Permalink
You see, that is exactly what I’m talking about. Your testimony is completely from the heart. Unsubstantiated, unproven, even disproven, but yet nothing could sway you from the “truth”. Nothing, possibly, except fact. However, there is no fact that you could possibly accept unless it fits into your neat little Mormon mold. And that’s fine. To you, every you say IS very real. As long as you can live that way, then good for you. I, for one, cannot.
However, as with me and my 39 years, nothing can sway you. It was quite by accident that I fell upon the information I did. And as I said, it made me very sad. Not sad enough to ignore it, but sad nonetheless.
Probably, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn’t really matter what you believe, as long as you are true to it.
My peace with God is unshaken. My peace with man is on the rocks.
2 Mar 2006 @ 16:14 | Permalink
Clark, you are right. Faith isn’t something that can be proven. I am glad you are at peace with the Lord. I hope that one day you can come to peace with man.
Also, I don’t have a neat little Mormon mold :) There are many things I do not understand, but my testimony of Jesus Christ, of the prophet and of the Book of Mormon are unshakeable because, well, I can’t explain why, I just KNOW they are. All I know is, I have a strong faith.
2 Mar 2006 @ 16:23 | Permalink
I have spent alot of time studying the native Americans and the Book of Mormon. Many people(Including Joseph Smith) believed that the Book of Mormon is talking about the Native Americans. The Truth of the Matter is that none of it can be proved or disproved. We can find what ever evidence we want but it will do absolutly no good at all in convincing anyone. I have a close friend (From Samoa) that recieved a personal revelation that the Samoans are descended from the Nephites. (See Hagoth The ship builder Alma 63:5) This he believes with all his heart. I will only say that I served as a counselor to him in the Elder’s quorum presidency. I have felt his testimony and I believe him.
I cannot prove anything But I believe the Book of Mormon is True.
4 Apr 2006 @ 14:00 | Permalink
“The Truth of the Matter is that none of it can be proved or disproved.”
More appropriately the truth of the matter is that none of the claims made by Southerton et al will ever convince the die-hard believer anyway.
The anachronisms in the BoM are plentiful, and the lack of evidence to support it as an actual history of the north/south/central americas is quite obvious.
Would it matter if it were not a literal history of the americas?
Would that change your testimony?
4 Apr 2006 @ 14:33 | Permalink
I have found this thread totally fascinating. I too have been experiencing this “cognitive dissonance” over the past year and a half. Rick might be suprised to hear this since I have been a rather stubborn defender of the faith in past conversations with him. I guess that is part of process.
I relate to Kim’s feelings of abandonment when his prayers went unanswered. I agree that much of what has been taught and believed in the church seems ridiculous. I too have learned upsetting things that I cannot ignore. I feel embarassed at having been blind to my own indoctrination and assuming that anything critical of the church had to be a deception, yet I mourn the loss of my happily uniformed and unaware existance.
Cognitave dissonance is indeed painful. It confuses me to think about how my parents and grandparents, all of whom I repect as intelligent and rational, could buy into it all, and more importantly, why are certain aspects of church history and church teachings hidden from common knowledge?
Unlike Kim, I have not gotten past this entirely. I have not made conclusions either way. I think I would have long ago, except for the few spiritual experiences I have had which I think Kim and Mary understand. Of course, spiritual feelings can be easily discounted, I know. But are profound feelings which seem to originate from an external source always less relevant than science? I don’t know, I suppose that is up to an individual to decide according to what they have experienced.
And what about miracles that simply cannot be explained away? The most compelling of all is my experience as a very young child when I recieved a preisthood blessing. I remember hands being layed on my head and I remember something being said, though I was not paying attention to the words nor did I have a clear understanding of what a preisthood blessing was so it cannot be explained by the placebo effect of my faith because I did not know enough about what was happening to have faith. All I know was that I was instantly relieved of what tormented me. The effect was powerful and real and I have never forgotten it. What am I to make of this?
At the very least, I must acknowledge that there is a power out there, a power that is profoundly good. I don’t think it is exclusive to Mormons, but there is no doubt in my mind that it can be tapped into by preisthood holders. Does this prove Mormonism to be true? I don’t know, but this is the only reason why I haven’t been able to let go of the religion thus far. I am OK with letting go of everything else, all the doctrines, the traditions, etc. I can handle that at this point, in fact it makes more sense to do so. I am not being irrational in a battle to hold onto old beleifs.
But what is a person to make of their first-hand witness of evidence of the power of the preisthood? No one can judge another of being delusional since they were not the one experiencing it.
Meanwhile, I must tell Kim how grateful I am for his insight and willingness to share it. Especially your comment,
“I certainly reject the ridiculous, but what I believe has less to do with what I have chosen and more to do with how I have confirmed it.”
I guess that is what it all comes down to.
Anyhow, I obviously don’t have any solid conclusions. I really don’t have anyone else to talk to about all this, so if you’re still reading this, thanks for listening and thanks for providing a forum where I could freely express my thoughts.
4 Apr 2006 @ 23:35 | Permalink
Rick Said “The anachronisms in the BoM are plentiful, and the lack of evidence to support it as an actual history of the north/south/central americas is quite obvious.” We have Cortez and Columbus to thank for the lack of evidence of the Book of Mormon.
5 Apr 2006 @ 05:11 | Permalink
Nermalcat: I also was disillusioned as I began to learn that the things I was taught as a child were, in some instances not as they were presented to me, but I, over the years, have come to the conclusion that the Gospel is all about faith. We have no evidence whatsoever. We have scientists and critics trying to prove it false, We have some false information coming to us from inside, We have, dare I say it? Falible human beings as leaders. Yet the Lords Gospel still seems to go forth, inspite of all the obsticles.
Yet there are simple things that give us hope for our belief. The Whisperings of the still small voice, to me, have a way of drowning out all of the other noise against it.
I don’t have all, or many of, the answers, but the one answer I have is this.
If we are faithfull, and endure to the end, We Will Know.
I had many questions and no spiritual witness for most of my life. I had had many small moments of spiritual guidence, and that was what I built my faith on. I was raised in the church, but it wasn’t until I was over 42 years old that I had my more enlightening spiritual experience, telling me that my faith throughout the years had not been in vain.
5 Apr 2006 @ 05:26 | Permalink
Ray, exactly that. You said it.
Nermalcat, the fact that you are seeking is a good sign, and will help you. Questioning isn’t bad of course, it’s what helps you find answers. You are so right, there is good and spirituality in other religions, spiritual beliefs and experiences. The Church of Jesus Christ doesn’t have the monopoly on that. The only thing we have right now is the keys for ordinances. Lots of other good too, yes. But Heavenly Father is aware of all His children, where ever they may be and whatever they are going through.
I know it’s an old cliche, but it is still true, it is often darkest before the dawn, and through our deepest trials comes our greatest growth. This can be applied to so many areas in life. My personal favourite is of course, birth. The pain is most intense, most “uncontrollable” and “unbearable” just before the baby is born. And then comes the joy. It’s the same with knowledge; doubt and lack of knowledge are there until peace and understanding come. When it comes is anyone’s guess, but it’s after these times that knowledge is solidified. In whatever arena
5 Apr 2006 @ 06:00 | Permalink
Thankyou Ray and Mary.
5 Apr 2006 @ 13:15 | Permalink
“We have Cortez and Columbus to thank for the lack of evidence of the Book of Mormon.”
Why is that?
5 Apr 2006 @ 13:32 | Permalink
I was giving a blessing to a close friend the other day because of some trials he was going through.(job Related) This friend is a very very faithfull honest decent guy. In the blessing I felt impressed to reming him of something that remains true for everyone that ever has a strong testimony;
We all must have that testimony tried. Even to the very breaking point. We all must go through our own Gethsemanie. That is the test for us. We will go through many periods of trial but one will be the hardest. We call it the refiners fire. If we endure that point then afterwards, in my opinion, and in my experience, the trials change. With me it seems like I havn’t had to work as hard to build or keep my testimony since then.
It seeems like the spirit is closer, and my faith is stronger, even during subsequent periods of trial. President Hinkley’s challenge to read the Book of Mormon was one such trial period for me. I kept his challenge and waited for the increased portion of the spirit and stronger testimony to come. It came but from a very unexpected direction. I started to find evidence that contradicts the Book of Mormon’s challenge, as far as being a history of the people that lived here in the Americas. As the evidence piled up I started to ask myself one question.
Will I get closer to Jesus Christ by reading the Book of Mormon and Abiding it’s principles. And the answer is YES! Nothing else matters. Any other evidence or proof that can be given mean exactly nothing. I cannot prove the Book or Mormon or the Church True. But I know it beyond any doubt or hesitation.
5 Apr 2006 @ 13:38 | Permalink
BTW If anyone knows of a rightious single, or divorced woman my friend is 42 and looking. (He is very shy and asked for my help)
5 Apr 2006 @ 13:42 | Permalink
Rick: In your history classes when Cortez and Columbus came to the Americas they took all the Gold and other valuables they could find, and distroyed any writings from the indians, refering to it as Pagan Worship, and forced on them their version of “Christianity”
10 Apr 2006 @ 13:27 | Permalink
Ray, are you seriously stating that hundreds of years of archeological evidence was destroyed so completely that we can’t find any today?
Not only that, I must have missed the part where the Spanish travelled throughout Mexico, Central and South America obliterating every bone, sword and stone they found.
10 Apr 2006 @ 14:05 | Permalink
If you will look deeper into history you will find that the Spanish did travel extensivly in south and central america, and they did remove all remnants of any religion among the indians, as well as any of their written records. Considering that the Book or Mormon record ends around 421 AD it is not a stretch to think that many people have gone through those areas and taken any artifacts that could be linked to anything.
In ohio a very large deposit of human remains was found by a number of different people ranging from the mid 1800s to the late 1900s.
I am not saying that these prove or disprove the Book of Mormon.
My brother used to say
“If you want to find out THAT something is true you will find it regardless of the facts. If you wint to find out IF something is true you will find the truth given the facts.”
IF and THAT are the key words here. I have delt with many anti-Mormon people in my life that because their mother or father said it was false that was all they needed to hear. Others have had to deal with a bad experience and from that moment on nothing that anyone said or did would change their mind.
It all boils down to faith. If somewhere in south or central america a city was found that had “Zerehamla” written on a sign in front of it, how many people would then believe? Would they need to have faith? Isn’t this kind of fiath extremely volitile? People converted to anything, (not only religion) through evidence don’t tend to stay converted very long.The Lord wants to know if we will have complete faith in the face of doubt. That is true faith.
11 Apr 2006 @ 05:24 | Permalink
Ray, I tihnk you hit the nail on the head – it’s all about faith.
I’d certainly like a reference to the mass destruction inflicted by the Spanish on all the potential archeological evidence for the book of Mormon, though.
You may want to notify FAIR of this ground breaking discovery as well. They’re always looking for another piece of the apologetic puzzle.
11 Apr 2006 @ 08:38 | Permalink
I learned about the spanish destruction in school. It was part of history.
And I am not going to support anyones efforts to make excuses for anything (Meaning the FAIR) I believe what I believe and I make no excuses. I have done enough research to know that it will never acomplish anything. If someone is looking for proof, or evidence to support their testimony than they don’t have one.
When my brother and I would argue login, religion, and athiism, I would finish my point by stating.
“I believe what I believe in spite of any facts or evidence that can be stated”
Because I know that all truth is “given to act in the sphere in which it is placed” (D&C 93) What ever proof or “facts” that someone can state mean nothing after we are out of this world.
11 Apr 2006 @ 09:07 | Permalink
We would argue Logic not Login
11 Apr 2006 @ 09:09 | Permalink
The spanish distruction is part of History, I learned it in school.
As far as the FAIR, I have done enough research that I am not going to make excuses or appologize for what I believe. I believe that truth is “given to act in the sphere in which it was placed” (D&C 93)SO any evidence or “proof” that someone can give “proving” the Book of Mormon False means absolutly Squat!!
11 Apr 2006 @ 09:25 | Permalink
Sorry I didn’t think that my first post went through
11 Apr 2006 @ 09:28 | Permalink
I’m telling you that I did not learn anything remotely like what you are describing, Ray.
I’ve asked my History Major, LDS best friend about it as well, and neither of us has the slightest idea what you’re talking about.
For those reasons, I’ve asked for some references. No biggie.
As far as FAIR goes, why wouldn’t you want to notify them of such an enormously significant finding as the Spanish removing all evidences of the BoM?
I’m just saying that as the spologetic wing at BYU, they might want to write something about it – if it indeed holds any water, or you may say is ‘like unto a dish’.
;)
11 Apr 2006 @ 09:46 | Permalink
I am saying that I don’t have a reference. It was taught in school many years ago. I took notice because I am LDS, and wondered why there was no evidence.
I remember watching a video (Reinactment)that showed the spanish taking and burning written records and stealing and melting down all the gold and taking it back to Spain.
11 Apr 2006 @ 10:26 | Permalink
I think what Rick is getting at, Ray, is that while the Spanish did destroy records and artifacts, there is no evidence that they destroyed every archaeological site and artifact of the ancient Americans, nor removed any trace of horses, elephants, and the like, and so on.
11 Apr 2006 @ 11:27 | Permalink
I Never said they removed archiological sites, or evidence of horses or anything like that. I said “and they did remove all remnants of any religion among the indians” Only of religion because they decided that it was all pagan so they intruduced them to their form of Christianity.
11 Apr 2006 @ 11:55 | Permalink
[...] Our Thoughts 7/30/04 DNA Lamanites and Book of Mormon 7/21/05 Southerton Promoting Book Again 2/18/06 Traditional Doctrine [...]
10 Aug 2006 @ 07:40 | Permalink
It has been interesting to read this thread. It explains a lot of the strange ideals that have been presented in other threads.
5 Nov 2006 @ 15:54 | Permalink
Not so fast! I have read through this thread, and I note that
somebody tried to pull academic rank earlier, so I will do the same. I also have a PhD, and it is in a scientific field (physics, Purdue U.), unlike (I suspect) the earlier poster. Everyone seems to be taking the DNA evidence as settled, but as much as biologists know about DNA itself, I doubt
many of them are experts in the statistical methods they use to reach conclusions. The whole question is framed in the wrong way. The Book of Mormon says that a relatively small group of people (less than 50) came to the new world around 600 BC. I think it is clear that there were already
people living here. In fact, the Mulekites mention that Corianton stayed with them for nine months, which means that the Jaredite civilization was collapsing even as Lehi’s family was spreading out in their new home. It also means
that there were people left over after the Jaredite collapse, and that these people did not recognize Corianton as a great leader. In other words, there were plenty of people around, even if they aren’t described in detail. The question then becomes: how large a sample is needed to detect DNA traces from this small group in the midst of a larger population? The relative numbers really matter, and with them, we can set limits on the feasibility of the Book of Mormon’s account of things. But it will be a percentage, not a definite yes or no. The question can even be turned around, where the absence of evidence will give us an estimate of how large the indigenous population would have to be to mask the effects of the small group. Once we hit absurdly large populations, we can say the Book of Mormon is in trouble. (With the
understanding that the numbers will change as DNA science is refined over time.) If we are talking about mitchondrial DNA, the small group is even smaller, since we are only talking about women. You will
note that Southerton is always careful to use the premise of a large Middle Eastern footprint so that he doesn’t have to worry about statistical issues. He argues that Nephites could not have dominated culturally without relatively large
numbers, but I disagree. They would have had a superior technology and culture, with steel working and a written language. They also were arriving on the heels of the collapse of the civilization before them. Further, intermarriage might not be as widespread as the DNA studies assume. If the Nephites tried to “marry within the faith,” the spread of their DNA would not occur as rapidly as it would otherwise. (It would, for example, be
interesting to see how easily DNA studies could predict the number of Jews in Germany prior to the rise of Hitler based on modern population samples.) In the
case of mtDNA, it is not hard to imagine that women were restricted (by stubborn parents) in their marriage choices even more than men, further limiting the spread. All of these factors contribute to a full statistical analysis of the problem. Without this analysis, geneticists can only make broad statements. I could go further and start discussing how DNA sequencing is done, along with possible sources of error such as parallel
mutations and mtDNA hotspots (“Reduced-Median-Network Analysis of Complete Mitochondrial DNA Coding-Region Sequences for the Major African, Asian, and European Haplogroups”, Herrnstadt et. al.,
Am. J. Human Genetics, 70:1152-1171, 2002), but my main point is to be a little more cautious about all of this. In the research papers that I have read (have you read any?), there is
still a lot of work to do to characterize and calibrate mutation rates (which are not uniform along the DNA sequence- there are fast and slow sites!), as well as to
fully sequence the 16,000 nitrogenous base sites present in
mtDNA. There is no such thing as an experimental scientific result without error bars. If it doesn’t have error bars, somebody doesn’t know what they are doing and should call in a qualified statistician. From what I have read about Southerton (his own account on some ex-Mormon site), it looks like he was just burned out and was actually glad to find an excuse to kick himself out of the church. How many other LDS geneticists have done the same because of all this?
4 Dec 2006 @ 18:41 | Permalink
This is a follow-up on the previous posting. I noticed that I assumed the importance of variable mutation rates is understood, but since it may not be, I will make it more
clear. mtDNA studies rely on something called haplogroups, which is how populations are organized. Haplogroups correspond to various sequences in the DNA strand that are unique to different populations. Early on in the research, a control region (also called the D-loop) in mitochondrial
DNA was designated as a common reference for purposes of chronological calibration. It was later discovered that this was perhaps not the best choice because it has abnormally high mutation rates compared to other portions of mtDNA. Estimates of the mutation rates in this region have varied
by as much as two orders of magnitude (100 times) (“The
Mutation Rate in the Human mtDNA Control Region”. Sigurdardottir et. al., Am. J. Human Genetics, 66:1599-1609, 2000). Our common progenitor (so-called mitochondrial Eve) was placed in Africa to a time between 150,000 to 200,000 years
ago, and then, given estimates of the mutation rate, haplogroup divergences were dated from this starting point. But if the mutation rate is off, then so is the estimated starting date. Because of this, creationists have seized on the possibility of a time span 100 times shorter to justify the biblical chronology of about 6,000 years between now and the biblical Eve. (Nobody has mentioned it yet, but Mormons also have a problem with this since Eve was supposed to be somewhere in Missouri about 6,000 years ago.)
I don’t want to get side-tracked on the evolutionary implications however, so back to the Book of Mormon question. If the time span is in fluctuation, it also means that the haplogroup that we are looking for in American populations is in fluctuation. More clearly, if the time span is really more
compressed than anthropology suggests, then a mutation that
should have been present in 600 BC according to anthropological calibration would have actually occurred later on. That means Sarah would not have had the mutated sequence, because it really occurred after she left, not before. As mentioned above, the situation is actually quite difficult, because different portions of the mtDNA sequence mutate at different rates, so even if the calibration of the control
region is finally settled, you still have to worry about the
independent mutation rates of haplogroup sequences in other parts of the strand to be sure you have everything straight. Professors, graduate students, and postdocs are getting publications, degrees, and tenure by studying this stuff
right now, so a little patience is in order before we start shredding the Book of Mormon and becoming just as bland as every other Christian faith out there.
It may be that haplogroup X, present in small percentages in North American Indian tribes
(“mtDNA Haplogroup X: An Ancient Link between Europe/Western Asia and North America?”, Brown et. al., Am. J. Human Genetics, 63:1852-1861, 1998 and “Origin and Diffusion of mtDNA Haplogroup X”, Reidla et. al., Am. J. Human Genetics, 73:1178-1190, 2003), is the signature of the Lehi migration. Its arrival is dated
to about 15 – 25 thousand years ago, but as noted above, this is based on an anthropological calibration. The X group is not present in Asia, but is present in Near Eastern and European populations. Research on the details of how the X group arrived and spread in the Americas is ongoing. Before anyone accuses me of mental gymnastics, let me reiterate that everything I have said is well-fixed, except for
the chronological calibration of the control region in mtDNA. It is on this that much of the debate is centered, and geneticists are still not settled on it. Most of them don’t care about the Book of Mormon, so if the debate is ongoing, we have to sit on the sidelines until the academic dust settles and only then apply the results to our little piece of the puzzle. In another ten or twenty
years, it is likely that the answer will converge between one of the two extremes so far (and the 150,000 to 200,000 year calibration is at one of those extremes). If we take the current middle ground, then 15 – 25,000 becomes 1,500 – 2,500, and the Book of Mormon account has good support. I don’t mean to imply that it will have strong evidence in its favor, but neither will Southerton’s categorical statements still apply. It will then be, as it was before, largely a matter of faith.
4 Dec 2006 @ 18:49 | Permalink
And your point is?
So basically your agreeing with Southerton that the natives are not jews and early church leaders did not speak the truth and thus could not have been speaking for God?
Interesting concept for a Phd.
14 million words down to 30.
6 Dec 2006 @ 15:15 | Permalink
I’m not saying church leaders were right in declaring that Mayans, Polynesians, and other Native Americans are really Jewish, I am saying that the Book of Mormon is not proven wrong by the research. The scientific jury is still out on this. Don’t use DNA evidence as incontrovertible proof until it is. Science is a very powerful tool for discovering answers, but the process of discovery is usually very slow with lots of false starts before the exhilaration of a breakthrough. We have to be patient, often for years. Church leaders can say that the Book of Mormon is a history of American people, which we believe it is. That would mean that the Lamanites, even if they weren’t Jewish, still believed in Christ and so on, and that their descendants ought to know about it. You may think that’s not fair because we haven’t proved it, but that doesn’t mean we can’t teach it. Troy was a myth until it was found, and so was the Mycenean civilization. Science can’t give a complete description of migrations to the Americas yet. Wait a few years and we will see. If you want church leaders to be right about everything they say as proof that God is speaking to them, then you are lucky you weren’t living in Jerusalem around 600 BC.
And don’t rag on the PhD- it is precisely Southerton’s scientific expertise that makes all of this legitimate in many people’s eyes. I have seen very little peer level discussion of his work on the Book of Mormon question. I am not a geneticist, but I do have experience working with scientific data and its interpretation, so I thought I would say something about it. You need a geneticist to get the data, but once you have it, it becomes largely a mathematical and statistical problem. How do I analyze this collection of A, T, C, and G sequences, knowing that they can switch places through a mutation? It is mathematically similar to the problem of a noisy digital communication channel with some bit error rate, only the bit error rate is nonuniform along the sequence, and each bit has four possible values instead of two. You also need a good geneticist to determine the mutation rates along the sequence, and that is what is being presently researched as I described above. Once this is done to the satisfaction of the majority of the genetics community, I predict you will see an argument between biologists and anthropologists about their differing chronologies. If I turn out to be wrong, it must be because God doesn’t speak to me.
8 Dec 2006 @ 11:41 | Permalink
In fact, the more I think about it, the more the problem really is like a noisy digital communication channel. I wonder if someone has already published a paper on this? I will have to take a look and see what is out there in the literature. If there is nothing, I might take it on myself and submit it for publication… it would be a fun problem.
8 Dec 2006 @ 12:51 | Permalink
“If I turn out to be wrong, it must be because God doesn’t speak to me.”
The best chuckle I’ve had all day. Thanks, Apologist. :)
8 Dec 2006 @ 13:20 | Permalink
Apologist said: “If you want church leaders to be right about everything they say as proof that God is speaking to them, then you are lucky you weren’t living in Jerusalem around 600 BC.”
I would prefer that men who claim to be God’s Leaders’s to tell the truth or not lie by acting like they speak for God when they don’t.
Whatever happened about the Prophet claiming scipture was fulfilled when the oil fields where set on fire. Why do we no longer hear about it?
8 Dec 2006 @ 14:47 | Permalink