“I’m not a real Native American, but I play one in the Book of Mormon.”

Funny thing about that. I just watched a JRE where a "first peoples" lady was saying that they don't even require native american blood in most cases to be considered native american. Its something more akin to being a citizen of a nation rather than a race.

The blood requirements is something the US government pushed on them in an effort to minimize the numbers of legitimate natives and reduce any support offered.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyXF_LffAM0

Remember. The most correct of all books was updated to change the Lamanites are THE principle ancestors of Native Americans to AMONG the principle ancestor of Native Americans.

Around the year 2135, ghawd will inspire it to changed into "...the Lamanites may possibly have met and traded with a few of this hemisphere's principal ancestors".


While it may not be all that much, we do have evidence of the existence of humanity in the Americas dating back to between 13,000 and 23,000 years ago.

But of the Nephites, whose numbers reached into the millions and millions, not one trace.

You'd think they'd have built up a lot of infrastructure in Missouri, around Adam's altar. You know, like in homage... Like it was a special place...

In the year 2525. . .

They ain't gonna need to tell the truth, tell no lies...

If man is still alive...

“we do have evidence of the existence of humanity in the Americas dating back to between 13,000 and 23,000 years ago”

Lamanite chicks must have been your kind of date.

http://ancientvikingsamerica.com/#:~:text=Ancient%20Vikings%20and%20Norse%20explorers%20came%20down%20the,and%20the%20Kensington%20Runestone%20(KRS)%20all%20found%20here.

Mormons today can't even say who the living Lamanites are. General Authorities haven't mentioned Lamanites in conference for many decades now. Now Mormons will tell you that there were all those other people in ancient America that the Book of Mormon never mentioned. It isn't even the same church that I once belonged to.

Because so much of what we thought the church was teaching has proven to be untrue, the changes that have and are being made are designed to get the church into a position of being a bit more 'Truish' than it used to be.

It's what passes for Revelation nowadays: take the pulse of the congregation and react accordingly.

As an example, here's a link to the 1988 temple survey. The results of this survey 'swayed' the lord to make the 1989 changes in the temple ceremony.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/76542947/1988-Temple-Survey

And remember, while ghawd may know the contents of your heart, of everyone's heart, he apparently won't share that information with his servants, the people making a living off of your tithing. Maybe the lord thinks they already have it too easy?

Who was it who went to the lord in earnest prayer to raise the issue of perhaps some elements of the temple ceremony being unpopular? And was it the lord's direct response, "Well, while I know everything, and I do giveth liberally and upbraideth not when asked properly, but in this case, you guys figure it out yourselves, 'k? What's that? How can you figure it out? Try a survey! And if people criticize you, just tell them that I, the lord, am mysterious in my ways... Yeah, that's the ticket!"


Mormonism, running on empty since before Jackson Browne was born.

It seems cultco saw the proverbial writing on the wall in the late 1970s. Perhaps Exhibit A was the elimination of the Lamanite Generation troupe. When I was a lad, Yoda Kimball assured us that 65 million Lamanites needed the church sold to them.

I have been out for decades, so I don't know the extent of gaslighting on it. I assume epic.

Wife still tells the kids that all native americans are lamanites. Actually she calls them that instead of native americans. I don't think I've ever heard them say the phrase "native american".

Its just not in the vocabulary, church labels first!

Good video on human presencr in the Americas: "We're not dealing with the Word of God here, we're dealing with fragile human beings with their own ideas... We're dealing with our past"

https://youtu.be/RD0QpNuzoIg

When I was working at Western Washington University in Bellingham, WA (2010 - 2012), there was a brilliant linguist named Edward Vajda, who completed a dictionary of the Ket language.

His work put another nail in the coffin of the BofM story of "Lamanites" coming to the Americas from the Middle East. His work indicated that "the Ket language of Siberia has a common linguistic ancestor with the Na-Dené languages of North America."

Does the name Eddie Vedda have any relationship to Ed Vajda? Just curious. I feel a little silly for asking. I bet I'm wrong.

The Ket story does not answer the question where Native Americans originated. Bayesian analysis indicates that the Ket and related groups represented a comparatively recent "back migration," meaning that the peoples in Beringia split up with one group migrating southeast into the Americas and another moving west into Siberia. That more recent divergence is the only way the genetic and linguistic similarities would remain so strong.

Of course the methodology that discovered the back migration and confirmed Vajda's amazing work is the same science that tells us Native Americans originated in Northeastern Asia long before: hence the word "back" for the movement of peoples into the Yenisei Basin.


ETA: See migration number four in the map on page 157 and the discussion on page 184 in the Reich book.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2021 04:57PM by Lot's Wife.

Cool! Thank you. It's amazing how often I have to go back to Reich.

What saddens me is that those guys are making progress so fast that any book they produce is out of date by the time it comes off the press. I'll bet that lab has already discovered 30% more detail than what you and I are still trying to understand.

I bear my testimony that Jaredites were the first Native Americans. Source: the ultra-prophetic mind of Joseph Smith. Who needs Science when you have a revelator who writes bad fiction?