>> "it’s very likely that Lehi and his sons would appear on the ancestral slot of virtually all Native Americans today. Recent studies [http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2006/07/71298] demonstrate that many large groups of humans are related in distinct ways and that most people are descendants of Abraham. In fact, studies suggest that all of the people on earth today have a common ancestor who may have lived as recently as the time of Christ. Therefore, modern prophets have accurately referred to the people of North and South America — and even those of the Pacific Islands — as Lamanites. " <<


http://www.mormontimes.com/article/18831/Two-arguments-for-Great-Lakes-model-not-conclusive?s_cid=queue_title&utm_source=queue_title

The Most Intelligent DumbAsh in all of Mormondom has spoken (via Wired). We're all related. We're all Lamanites. It's like a Lamanite version of Kevin Bacon's six degrees. Lehi knew Bonk who beget Dimp who was related to Tom, who's my bishop.

Ok, how'd he figure this? Doing some dumbash math...let's see, if you go back 2000 years ago, with each generation averaging about 30 years between offspring, that's approximately 67 generations, each with two parents, giving us around 4,400 grandiose-parents of the 1BC era. That means one of your 4,400 grandiose parents probably was related to one of my 4,400 grandiose parents. And by that reasoning, we're all related (and by dumbash implication, we're commonly descended) because in every group of 4,400 of the old world, someone is related. And if all related, that means we all descended together!!!

This plants the genealogy tree on its ancestral head. It's ash-backward. lol

Taking it the other way, how far back does one go in human history before a person has a generation of 4,400 grandiose-kidlings? Historians estimate the pre-modern nominal birthrate to be about 1.2 kids per person (this is from memory, so someone please correct me). That being the case, and keeping a generation at 30 years, it would be ~33,000 years (33,000/30 ^1.2), historically, before a given person would have a single generation (average estimate) of ~4,400 persons. Yeah, 33,000 years ago, according to Moism, there wasn't even an earth.

Then there is this gem:

>>" All Native Americans can still be considered Lamanites from cultural as well as genealogical perspectives. Culturally, people of the United States are “Americans” even if they originally came here from Africa, Europe or Asia. And culturally, the descendants of this country’s indigenous inhabitants were once referred to as “Indians” — a term originally, and mistakenly, applied by Columbus. "<<

Hmmm. Has DumbAsh read his own Book of Mormon?

>> 1 Nephi 12:1 And it came to pass that the angel said unto me: Look, and behold thy seed, and also the seed of thy brethren. And I looked and beheld the land of promise; and I beheld multitudes of people, yea, even as it were in number as many as the sand of the sea. <<

Seed! , millions of them, we suppose. A "seedillion" of people As in...millions of literal descendants. Per this verse:

>> 1 Ne 7:1 Lord spake unto him again, saying that it was not meet for him, Lehi, that he should take his family into the wilderness alone; but that his sons should take daughters to wife, that they might raise up **seed** unto the Lord in the land of promise.

What promise?

>> 1 Ne 13:30-35 the Lord God hath covenanted with thy father that his seed should have for the land of their inheritance...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

Sorry, but this is literal, not cultural. You can't have it both ways, unless you also like taking it in the... (no I won't go there. lol)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2010 10:42AM by Jesus Smith.

If the BoM is plain and precious, why do we need apologists to tell what it means? Surely "plain" and precious truth can be taken at face value, literally, without combinations and permutations to make it make sense.

Yes, that is a point they've not addressed well (though I did have a long discussion with a FAIR mop a couple of months ago and his response to the plain and precious argument was lacking much).

The precious parts of the BoM? The parts that make Moism stand out (that restore the supposed lost parts of the bible). Doctrinally, not much in the BoM is different than the bible. So that stands to reason that the precious parts are the major differences like the claim of Lamanites, and Christ visiting America. But those are not plain. They are so convoluted now that science got into the picture, that they are extremely complex with mental twists of massive head-ache proportions.

The plain parts? The same old same old that is found in every christian church. Not very clouded or precious in terms of what the BoM offers that wasn't already there.

Once again, the BoM is proving itself as lacking an awful lot as the keystone, most correct book ever.

There are 22 witnesses that said Joseph used his seerstone in a hat to translate the Book of Mormo.
No witness has ever seen the plates being used in the translation process. Indeed, they were supposedly outside while Joseph translated them inside.
Nobody has ever seen the actual plates with their physical senses.
The seerstone that Joseph used was the same one he used to seek for treasure.

No treasure was ever found.

How can anyone believe that a faulty stone brought forth an accurate translation of plates that were never used by Joseph Smith jr, when there is not even one single piece of evidence in the entire western hemishpere, let alone Upstate New York where millions supposedly died.

Even if every single Native American tested positive for Hebrew DNA, the book falls flat by its own account.

JoD3:360 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> No witness has ever seen the plates being used in
> the translation process. Indeed, they were
> supposedly outside while Joseph translated them
> inside.
> Nobody has ever seen the actual plates with their
> physical senses.

>
> Even if every single Native American tested
> positive for Hebrew DNA, the book falls flat by
> its own account.


Which begs the question that if Smith didn't need the plates to translate, why, as the story is told, did Moroni lug them across the continent (apparently) and Smith went to the trouble of protecting them? The obvious answer to me is the plates were props made by Smith to persuade his marks, but he couldn't actually allow them to be inspected or the game would be over. That is why the angel had to take them away--Smith needed to get rid of the evidence of his con after they'd done their work. For me, the plates are evidence that Smith was a deliberate con artist.

There were people in the middle east 2000 years ago. Therefore the church is true?

Who's the bigger headcase? Michael Ash or Rodney Meldrum...

I worry about stuff like that when I've been behind the wheel too long....

SL Cabbie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who's the bigger headcase? Michael Ash or Rodney
> Meldrum...
>
> I worry about stuff like that when I've been
> behind the wheel too long....

I dunno. But Ash is about to have a big fight with FAIR on this new and improved inclusive definition of "Lamanite".

FAIR recently updated their wikis on DNA to include this statement.

>>" When asked about the Church’s official position on this matter by a writer, a Church spokesman said:
As to whether these were the first inhabitants…we don't have a position on that. Our scripture does not try to account for any other people who may have lived in the New World before, during or after the days of the Jaredites and the Nephites, and we don't have any official doctrine about who the descendants of the Nephites and the Jaredites are. Many Mormons believe that American Indians are descendants of the Lamanites [a division of the Nephites], but that's not in the scripture " <<
http://en.fairmormon.org/Amerindians_as_Lamanites#Origin_of_the_American_Indians:_20th_century_views

Note that "Not in the scripture" comment. Them's fighting words.

Ash says, Everyone is a Lamanite. FAIR says, No one is a Lamanite. FAIR has an official statement backing them up.

I'm betting that most members do not realize that their Lamanite beliefs are on the verge of being heretical. That is, to believe that Amerindians anywhere in N/C/S America are descendants of the Lamanites goes against emerging church position.

Who'da thunk?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2010 01:27PM by Jesus Smith.

"I'm betting that most members do not realize that their Lamanite beliefs are on the verge of being heretical."

Interesting how the One True Church Led By Direct Revelation has this problem as often as it does! Surely, the Lord would never allow His church to be led astray? It's not in the program, right?

Not because their brains have been pretzeled.

"Note that 'Not in the scripture' comment."

Mr. Ash's words from his latest writing:

"The use of the term “Lamanite” in the Doctrine and Covenants may simply be an extension of a common LDS vernacular of the time."

D&C 28 was the "Lord's words" to go on a mission to the Lamanites, or was it Joseph Smith's word choice and the mission was only to the American Indians?

D&C 57:4 "...the line running directly between Jew and Gentile..."

The "Lord's words" called the American Indian west of Missouri "Jew".

If the words in the D&C are true, they should not be described as "an extension of a common LDS vernacular at the time." If an official church spokesman says it is not in scripture, we have them in a bold faced lie.

"The Lord took every precaution to see that nothing might interfere with this posterity of Joseph in working out their God-given destiny and the destiny of America. He provided, and so told Lehi at the very beginning of his settlement, that: . . 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. (2 Nephi 1:8.) The Lord so kept the land for a thousand years after Lehi landed. He so kept it in His wisdom for another thousand years after the Nephites were destroyed, perhaps to give the Lamanitish branch another chance."

- Apostle J. Reuben Clark, "Prophecies, Penalties, and Blessings," Improvement Era, 1940, v. xliii., July 1940. no. 7
--------------------
"Not only in the Book of Mormon are the descendants of Lehi called Jews, but also in the Doctrine and Covenants. In section 19, this is found: 'Which is my word to the Gentile, that soon it may go to the Jew, of whom the Lamanites are a remnant, that they may believe the gospel, and, look not for a Messiah to come who has already come.'"

- Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, v. 3, p. 264
----------------------
“And the skins of the Lamanites [Native Americans] were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.”

- Book of Mormon, Alma, chapter 3, verse 6
--------------------------
"The Lamanites [Native Americans], now a down-trodden people, are a remnant of the house of Israel. The curse of God has followed them as it has done the Jews, though the Jews have not been darkened in their skin as have the Lamanites."

- Prophet Wilford Woodruff, Journal of Discourses, v. 22, p. 173

Thanks JoD. I think the most damning right now is the denial of the words of the Savior according to their own canonized writings.

There are so many statements that contradict the new "doctrines" of no-where-lamanites. Profit statements against migration of others, the lamanites not being in America and so forth are plentiful. And yes, the BoM text itself is chock-block full of statements that are all but bullet-proof in their assumption that no one else was in America. It's only by ignoring them, and using implication that FAIR gets away with the modern doctrine of "others".

The Doctrine and Covenants is "modern" revelation. But if they say it is not the words of the Savior, they are admitting they do not have any revelation.

I think we have them with this. At this point, forget the Book of Mormon, they are throwing away the words of Jesus revealed in "modern times".

Damn liars. Damn cult.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2010 05:36PM by ozpoof.

This statement disgusts me:

..."As to whether these were the first inhabitants…we don't have a position on that. Our scripture does not try to account for any other people who may have lived in the New World before, during or after the days of the Jaredites and the Nephites, and we don't have any official doctrine about who the descendants of the Nephites and the Jaredites are. Many Mormons believe that American Indians are descendants of the Lamanites [a division of the Nephites], but that's not in the scripture "

This just flys in the face of everything I was taught for YEARS as a Latter Day Saint.

Liars. Damn liars. I hope they burn in hell.

Yes, liars. Both FAIR and LDSinc.

The actual officially posted statement about the BoM DNA issue is short and does not say what FAIR claims.


http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/article/dna-and-the-book-of-mormon

"Recent attacks on the veracity of the Book of Mormon based on DNA evidence are ill considered. Nothing in the Book of Mormon precludes migration into the Americas by peoples of Asiatic origin. The scientific issues relating to DNA, however, are numerous and complex. Those interested in a more detailed analysis of those issues are referred to the resources below. ..."

Nothing precludes migration into america except the BoM they mean. It's clear.

Furthermore, they don't deny that the American Indians are or are not the Lamanites. They don't use this "Many believe, but it's not in scripture" argument officially.

The statement at FAIR is referenced as this:
>> Stewart Reid, LDS Public Relations Staff, quoted by William J. Bennetta in The Textbook Letter (March-April 1997), published by The Textbook League (P.O. Box 51, Sausalito, California 94966). <<

This is old, and predates most of the DNA evidence against the BoM (tho, there was plenty of other damning evidence already).

And who is Stewart Reid or William Bennetta? This is FAIR's official statement of church position?

Friggin liars, both.

I would think there's a rather low standard for shame with people like Mormons. Okay, so they claimed for 170+ years that the Book of Mormon is a history of an ancient American nation who originated in Jerusalem and were the ancestors of native Americans. DNA evidence debunks this spectacularly, especially Simon Southerton's book. So, what would be the most consistent reaction for a group of people who wears magic underwear? Would it be more consistent for them to just do the difficult but honorable thing and accept the truth? Or would it be more consistent for them to make the silliest, most credibility-straining excuses imaginable?

Not only that, no one has ever seen the original copy or any other reformed egyptian manuscripts yet we have to believe it existed and an angel took it up to heaven because it was too boring, I mean sacred, for plain eyes to see.

I'm surprised that Ash-hole hasn't been called to the COB for a dress down (we know that Robert Millet was told to cool it with his outreach to evangelicals). The more he opens up his mouth, the more ridiculous the BOM looks. Maybe, he's a closet ex-mo double agent? Now there's an idea for a book.

The existence of a most recent common ancestor (MRCA) within the last 2000 years is not all that crazy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor#MRCA_of_all_living_humans

It's when you look at matrilineal and patrilineal MRCA that you need to go back tens or hundreds of thousands of years.

mateo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The existence of a most recent common ancestor
> (MRCA) within the last 2000 years is not all that
> crazy:

If you mean founders, then sure. But what Ash claimed is "that all of the people on earth today have a common ancestor who may have lived as recently as the time of Christ."

All people, being operative.

We might all have relations as our ancestry branches back. But all people having *a* common ancestor from 2000 years ago?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2010 05:50PM by ozpoof.

But that's not what MRCA is. He/she isn't the apex of everyone's family tree, the way Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam are. MRCA is just a person who happens to be somewhere in everyone's family tree--almost always in a different place.

It seems you didn't read the article I linked, so I'll try again:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7008/full/nature02842.html

These aren't a bunch of cranks. They're guys from MIT and Yale, publishing in Nature. They know their shit.

mateo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MRCA is just a
> person who happens to be somewhere in everyone's
> family tree
> It seems you didn't read the article I linked, so
> I'll try again:
>
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7008/fu
> ll/nature02842.html

True, I didn't read it. I will read it. A glance suggest the following:

>"These analyses suggest that the genealogies of all living humans overlap in remarkable ways in the recent past."

By analyses, they mean model. And by MRCA they mean hypothetical. This lies in the assumption of migration patterns that they do not know, obviously.

They also admit up front that it is probabilistic based on random mating. ("...randomly mating population would have lived in the very recent past. However, the random mating model ignores essential aspects of population substructure...")

That being said, populations which were isolated from each other 1000-2000 years ago and remain highly isolated from other civilizations (e.g., Papa new guinea, Mayans in Guatemalan highlands) will likely have individuals/clans that do not fit their model. I could be very wrong...

Again, while interesting, this does nothing to help Ash with his case that "most people are descendants of Abraham" or that "modern prophets have accurately referred to the people of North and South America — and even those of the Pacific Islands — as Lamanites". Neither Abraham nor Lamanites have ever been evidenced in existence beyond the literary world.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2010 06:18PM by Jesus Smith.

This rationale for defining a Lamanite also implies that through direct lineal descent the indigenous people of America might have been the product of evolution while that distant relative was from Adam and Eve. Such logic used with religion in this way is suggestively racist.

Isn't that what was asserted, that the MRCA was for ALL humans 200 years ago?

Didn't JS ever make a single rubbing of those etched characters so that he could show that he was being honest? I sure as heck would have.

He copied "Caractors"
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/02/Caractors_large.jpg/800px-Caractors_large.jpg

Which have been hypothesized to have come from what is called the Detroit Manuscript.

http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/saga/saga02b.htm

The hypothesis drawing Smith's character set to that manuscript is as worthy and more probable proposal than the magic thinking that he interpreted thoughts given by god as a translation of re-formed Egyptian.

I suppose the best arguments against this hypothesis is that with 4000+ characters in Tironian, it's possible that one could find some character to match the few dozen Anthon set, even if it weren't originally taken from Tironian. Another argument could be whether the "Caracters" are indeed the Anthon set.

Now, wait just a moment here. Why did Joseph Smith send Oliver Cowdrey to the western borders of the emerging USA. Publicly it was to preach the story of the BofM to the descendents of the Lamenites because the Amerands were ALL descendent of Lehi.
However, privately it was because Oliver had caught word of polygamy. At one point Joseph was in the stockade / fort at Far West and Oliver arrived at the gate calling for the convening of a High Council Court to try Joseph for his apostasy and immoral behavior. Joseph barred the gates, drummed up a court and excommunicated Oliver.
Thus ended the first mission to the "Lamenites", It intreges me that this was also the cause of Sidney Rigdon's excommunication after Joseph decided to seduce Nancy Ridgon, Sidney's daugher.
In the '60s the doctrine was that ALL Amerands in North and South America were the direct descends of Lehi. It is impossible to countinance that what was true yesterday is only a matter on conjecture today. Tomorrow, it will be that the Lamenites were taken into the land northward to join up with the lost tribes and that is why Middle Eastern DNA is missing from the Amerands.
BS by any name,still smells the same.