|
|
| (116 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | {{question}} | + | {{Main Page}} |
| | + | <onlyinclude> |
| | + | {{H2 |
| | + | |L=Book of Mormon/Lamanites/Relationship to Amerindians |
| | + | |H=The relationship of Native Americans to Lamanites |
| | + | |S= |
| | + | |L1=Identity of the Lamanites in the Book of Mormon |
| | + | |L2=Are all Native Americans descendants of Lehi? |
| | + | |L3=Relationship of the Maya and the Olmec to the Lamanites and the Jaredites |
| | + | |L4=Statements by Church leaders related to the identity of the Lamanites |
| | + | }} |
| | + | {{:Book of Mormon/Lamanites/Relationship to Amerindians/Who are the Lamanites}} |
| | + | {{:Book of Mormon/Lamanites/Relationship to Amerindians/Descendants of Lehi}} |
| | + | {{:Relationship of the Maya and the Olmec to the Lamanites and the Jaredites}} |
| | + | {{:Book of Mormon/Lamanites/Relationship to Amerindians/Statements}} |
| | + | </onlyinclude> |
| | | | |
| − | ==Question==
| + | {{Critical sources box:Book of Mormon/Lamanites/Relationship to Amerindians/CriticalSources}} |
| − | Are all Amerindians descendants of Lehi?
| + | {{endnotes sources}} |
| | + | <!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE --> |
| | | | |
| − | ==Answer==
| + | [[es:El Libro de Mormón/Lamanitas/Relación con los Amerindios]] |
| − | | + | [[pt:O Livro de Mórmon/Lamanitas/Relação com os ameríndios]] |
| − | ===How have LDS members understood Amerindian origins?===
| |
| − | | |
| − | In their more candid moments, the ex-Mormon critics admit that their criticisms revolve around a key assumption. Simon Southerton writes of how some Mormons have argued that
| |
| − | | |
| − | :Bottleneck effect, genetic drift, Hardy-Weinberg violations and other technical problems would prevent us from detecting Israelite genes [in Amerindians].{{ref|southerton1}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | This is a technical way of explaining a relatively simple fact: if a small group is placed in contact with a larger group and allowed to intermarry, it becomes harder to detect the small group’s “genetic signature.”
| |
| − | | |
| − | It is as if one placed a teaspoon of red dye in an Olympic swimming pool, mixed well, and then withdrew a sample. Southerton and his fellow critics are in the position of someone who complains loudly because the sampled water does not seem to be “red”!
| |
| − | | |
| − | Southerton then goes on to say:
| |
| − | | |
| − | :I agree entirely. [!] In 600 BC there were probably several million American Indians living in the Americas. If a small group of Israelites entered such a massive native population it would be very, very hard to detect their genes 200, 2000 or even 20,000 years later. But does such a scenario fit with what the Book of Mormon plainly states or what the prophets have taught for 175 years? Short answer. No! Long answer. Nooo!{[ref|southerton2}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | This is really quite astonishing. Southerton has obliged us by shooting himself in the foot. He admits that there are many genetic objections to his attack, unless we accept that the American Indians are only descendants of Lehi and Mulek.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Contrary to Southerton’s assertion, the short answer is that he is either ignorant of the facts, or being deceptive.
| |
| − | | |
| − | For those who are interested, we turn to the long answer.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Remember, Southerton claims that we must accept his version, because
| |
| − | | |
| − | # the Book of Mormon ‘plainly’ teaches it; and
| |
| − | # “the prophets” have taught this doctrine (and no other, we must presume) for 175 years.
| |
| − | | |
| − | So, by Southerton’s own admission, his model is in fatal trouble if a “whole empty hemisphere” model is not taught by both the Book of Mormon and the prophets.That Southerton would make such a claim, and put his theory on such shaky ground, illustrates how poorly he understands the Book of Mormon and writing about it that has gone on for decades prior to Watson and Crick's discovery of the double helix.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ====Initial ideas====
| |
| − | It is not surprising that some Church members concluded that all Amerindians were descendants of Lehi/Mulek. In fact, this was the initial conclusion drawn by many contemporaries of Joseph Smith. For example:
| |
| − | | |
| − | * Lucy Mack Smith describing the Book of Mormon: "a history of the origin of the Indians."{{ref|lms1}}
| |
| − | * WW Phelps, 1833: "That wonderful conjecture, which left blank as to the origin . . . of the American Indians, was done away by the Book of Mormon…"{{ref|wwphelps1}}
| |
| − | * Parley P. Pratt [apostle], 1837: "reveals the origin of the American Indians, which was before a mystery." {{ref|pppratt1}}
| |
| − | * Orson Pratt [apostle], 1875: I refer to the American Indians, all remnants of Joseph and belonging to the house of Israel. {{ref|orsonpratt1}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | And, many later members and leaders continued to emphasize this perspective (though, as discussed above, if Lehi had any descendants, then all present Amerindians are his descendants):
| |
| − | | |
| − | * LeGrand Richards [Apostle] 1954: The dark-skinned people who occupied this land of America from that time on were called "Lamanites," who are the people known generally as the American Indians, all of whom are of the house of Israel.{{ref|richards1}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ====A reevalution====
| |
| − | | |
| − | However, contrary to the claims of critics who attempt to use DNA evidence to discredit the Book of Mormon, some readers and leaders reconsidered these ideas.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Taught Elder Levi Edgar Young [First Council of the Seventy] in 1928 general conference:
| |
| − | | |
| − | :There must be a clear distinction, it grows every year more evident, ''between the origins of America's ancient people and the sources of their culture.'' The human material of the pre- Columbian societies probably came from Asia by way of Alaska, the orthodox route long accepted for the American Indians…Among many social belongings abandoned along the route seem to have been most of the things called intellectual. The men and women who peopled America arrived, intellectually, with the clothes they stood in…Dr. Uhle urges an alternative [theory for how high culture arose in the Americas]…Occasional cultured mariners from India, China, Japan or other lands may have landed, he believes, few in numbers, but full of ideas, to bring to the rude American societies…just the hint that culture was possible. ''Small numerically as this source of inspiration must have been, it may conceivably have been the seed from which sprouted the great achievements of Peru and Central America…''{{ref|young1}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | A 1927 Book of Mormon study guide noted that:
| |
| − | | |
| − | :All Indians Are ''Not'' the Descendants of Lehi …Students of the Book of Mormon should be cautioned against the error of supposing that all the American Indians are the descendants of Lehi, Mulek, and their companions, and that their languages and dialects, their social organizations, religious conceptions and practices, traditions, etc., are all traceable to those Hebrew sources.
| |
| − | | |
| − | :Because the Jaredite record is very brief we are apt to forget that it embraces many centuries—how many, we have no means of ascertaining—and that it gives an epitome principally of the history of Moron, where the Jaredites first established themselves. It stands to reason that the Jaredites gradually settled in favorable localities all over the American continents, and that both Nephites and Lamanites came in contact with them, and that an amalgamation took place everywhere as in the case of the Nephites and Mulekites in Zarahemla. If so, the Jaredite culture must have become a factor in the development of the institutions and languages of the country. But the Jaredites came from some center of population in Asia…{{ref|sjodahl1}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | In April 1929, President Anthony W. Ivins [Counselor in First Presidency] said in General Conference:
| |
| − | | |
| − | :We must be careful in the conclusions that we reach. The Book of Mormon teaches the history of three distinct peoples, or two peoples and three different colonies of people, who came from the old world to this continent. ''It does not tell us that there was no one here before them. It does not tell us that people did not come after. And so if discoveries are made which suggest differences in race origins, it can very easily be accounted for, and reasonably, for we do believe that other people came to this continent.''{{ref|ivins1}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | A Church study guide of 1938 was even more definitive:
| |
| − | | |
| − | :Indian ancestry, at least in part, is attributed by the Nephite record to the Lamanites. However, the Book of Mormon deals ''only with the history and expansion of three small colonies which came to America and it does not deny or disprove the possibility of other immigrations'', which probably would be unknown to its writers. ''Jewish origin may represent only a part of the total ancestry of the American Indian today.{{ref|berrett1}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | And, in 1940, members with the critics' attitudes were cautioned:
| |
| − | | |
| − | :There is a tendency to use the Book of Mormon as a complete history of all pre-Columbian peoples. The book does not claim to be such an history, and we distort its spiritual message when we use it for such a purpose. ''The book does not give an history of all peoples who came to America before Columbus.'' There may have been other people who came here, by other routes and means, of which we have no written record. If historians wish to discuss information which the Book of Mormon does not contain but which is related to it, then we should grant them that freedom. ''We should avoid the claim that we are familiar with all the peoples who have lived on American soil when we discuss the Book of Mormon''. . . There is safety in using the book in the spirit in which it was written. Our use of poorly constructed inferences may draw us far away from the truth. In our approach to the study of the Book of Mormon let us guard against drawing historical conclusions which the book does not warrant.{{ref|west1}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | Elder Dallin H. Oaks [Apostle] noted that he had been taught this idea in the 1950s at BYU:
| |
| − | | |
| − | :Here [at BYU] I was introduced to the idea that the Book of Mormon is not a history of all of the people who have lived on the continents of North and South America in all ages of the earth. Up to that time, I had assumed that it was. If that were the claim of the Book of Mormon, any piece of historical, archaeological, or linguistic evidence to the contrary would weigh in against the Book of Mormon, and those who rely exclusively on scholarship would have a promising position to argue.
| |
| − | | |
| − | :In contrast, if the Book of Mormon only purports to be an account of a few peoples who inhabited a portion of the Americas during a few millennia in the past, the burden of argument changes drastically. It is no longer a question of all versus none; it is a question of some versus none. In other words, in the circumstance I describe, the opponents of historicity must prove that the Book of Mormon has no historical validity for any peoples who lived in the Americas in a particular time frame, a notoriously difficult exercise.{{ref|oaks1}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | In 1957, Elder Richard L. Evans [Apostle] prepared material for a secular audience, and described the Book of Mormon as
| |
| − | | |
| − | :part of a record, both sacred and secular, of prophets and peoples who (''with supplementary groups'') were among the ancestors of the American 'Indians'{{ref|evans1}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | This article was republished twice (in 1963 and 1975) and the latter publication was reapproved for publication by the First Presidency.{{ref|fn1}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | It is astonishing that critics do not realize that this approval puts a fairly “official” stamp of approval on this perspective—at the very least, it is hardly out of the ‘mainstream’ of Church thought to think that others besides Israelites make up modern Amerindians, and this perspective existed long before the DNA issue came to the fore.
| |
| − | | |
| − | More recently, the ''Ensign'' published an article from John Sorenson, one of the most prominent advocates of the presence of other non-Israelite peoples in the Americas:
| |
| − | | |
| − | :Archaeological evidence from all New World areas where the early Nephites and Lamanites could have lived makes clear that peoples who descended from the Jaredite era also lived during the time of Lehi’s descendants. Given Laman and Lemuel’s ambition to rule, perhaps they or their descendants ruled over and absorbed such “natives.” Nephite record keepers perhaps did not know the details of that process, but that is the best explanation that I know of for the remarkable growth in the number of Lamanites.
| |
| − | | |
| − | :The case of the numerous Amulonites [in Alma 43:13] can be explained on similar grounds—taking control over a resident population.{{ref|sorenson1}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | And, 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.{{ref|official1}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | So, apostles and seventies have made statements which differ from Southerton’s understanding of the matter, taught them in General Conference, and the Church has published such perspectives in their magazines, study guides, and manuals. The Church’s university has passed them on to their students for generations. The Church’s official spokespeople disclaim the interpretation which Southerton insists we must hold. Why must we? Well, because Southerton’s DNA theory “disproving” the Book of Mormon is in deep trouble otherwise, as he’s already admitted!
| |
| − | ==Endnotes==
| |
| − | | |
| − | #{{note|olson1}} Olson is co-author of a letter to ''Nature'', in which he discusses these ideas in a more technical format. See Douglas L. T. Rohde, Steve Olson, and Joseph T. Chang, "Modelling the recent common ancestry of all living humans," 431 ''Nature'' (30 September 2004): 562–566. {{link|url=http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7008/abs/nature02842.html}} Olson provides a "semi-technical" description of his findings [http://www.slate.com/id/2138060/sidebar/2138061/ here].
| |
| − | #{{note|olson2}} Steve Olson, "Why We're All Jesus' Children," ''slate.com'' (15 March 2006). Last accessed 12 October 2006 (emphasis added). {{link|url=http://www.slate.com/id/2138060/}}
| |
| − | #{{note|howafrican1}} John Hawks, "How African Are You? What genealogical testing can't tell you," ''slate.com'' (15 March 2006), accessed 12 October 2006. {{link|url=http://www.slate.com/id/2138059/}}
| |
| − | #{{note|kimball1}} {{Ensign1|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=Of Royal Blood|date=July 1971|start=7}} {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1971.htm/ensign%20july%201971.htm/of%20royal%20blood.htm}}
| |
| − | #{{note|kimball2}} {{Ensign1|author=Spencer W. Kimball|article=Of Royal Blood|date=July 1971|start=10}} {{link|url=http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1971.htm/ensign%20july%201971.htm/of%20royal%20blood.htm}}
| |
| − | #{{note|southerton1}}Simon Southerton, e-mail, “Answering the DNA apologetics,” 15 February 2005, 18h42 (copy in author’s possession).
| |
| − | #{{note|southerton2}}''Ibid''.
| |
| − | #{{note|lms1}}Lucy Mack Smith, ''Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and His Progenitors for Many Generations'' (Liverpool, England, 1853), 152.
| |
| − | #{{note|wwphelps1}}{{EMS1 | author=W. W. Phelps | article=The Book of Mormon|date=January 1833|start=?}}
| |
| − | #{{note|pppratt1}}Parley P. Pratt, ''A Voice of Warning and Instruction to All People, etc.'' (New York: W. Sandford, 1837), 135.
| |
| − | #{{note|orsonpratt1}}{{JoD17_1|author=Orson Pratt|title=?|date=7 February 1875|start=299}}{{nl}}
| |
| − | #{{note|richards1}} LeGrand Richards, ''Israel! Do You Know?'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1954), 37.{{nl}}
| |
| − | #{{note|young1}} {{CR|author=Levi Edgar Young|date=October 1928|start=103|end=106, italics added}}
| |
| − | #{{note|sojdahl1}}{{IE1|author=Janne M. Sjodahl|article=Suggested Key To Book of Mormon Geography|vol=30|num=11|date=September 1927|start=?}}
| |
| − | #{{note|ivins1}} {{CR1|author=Anthony W. Ivins|date=April 1929|start=15, italics added}}
| |
| − | #{{note|berrett1}} William E. Berrett, Milton R. Hunter, Roy A. Welker, and H. Alvah Fitzgerald, ''A Guide to the Study of the Book of Mormon'' (Salt Lake City: LDS Department of Education, 1938), 47–48, italics added.
| |
| − | # {{note|west1}} Roy A. West, ''An Introduction to the Book of Mormon: A Religious-Literary Study'' (Salt Lake City: LDS Department of Education, 1940), 11, italics added.
| |
| − | # {{note|oaks1}} Dallin H. Oaks, "The Historicity of the Book of Mormon," (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1994): 2–3; republished in Dallin H. Oaks, "The Historicity of the Book of Mormon," in ''Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures'', edited by Paul Y. Hoskisson (Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center, 2001), 238–239.
| |
| − | # {{note|evans1}} Richard L. Evans, "What Is a 'Mormon'?" in ''Religions of America'', edited by Leo Rosten (London: Heinemann, 1957), 94, italics added; reprinted as ''Religions of America: Ferment and Faith in an Age of Crisis: A New Guide and Almanac'' (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1975). {{nl}}
| |
| − | #{{note|fn1}}The quote and this observation are from {{FR-15-2-7}}
| |
| − | #{{note|sorenson1}} {{ensign1|author=John L. Sorenson|article=I Have a Question|date=September 1992|start=27, italics added}}{{nl}}
| |
| − | #{{note|official1}} 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).
| |
| − | #
| |
| − | ==Further reading==
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===FAIR wiki articles===
| |
| − | {{Book of Mormon anachronisms}}
| |
| − | {{DNAWiki}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===FAIR web site===
| |
| − | {{DNAFAIR}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===External links===
| |
| − | {{DNALinks}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Printed material===
| |
| − | {{DNAPrint}}
| |
