It is currently Sun Oct 21, 2018 10:46 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: bofgeography, the bow and arrow in the BofM?
PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 10:47 am 
First Presidency
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 2:10 am
Posts: 810
"the bow and arrow were adopted in the Ohio Valley between A.D. 300 and 400. During this period, large spear points were replaced by smaller arrowheads."
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories ... tures.html

Also see: Adoption of the Bow in Prehistoric North America, John H. Blitz, North American Archaeologist, Vol. 9(2), 1988
http://anthropology.ua.edu/reprints/22.pdf

The bow and arrow wasn't in the geographies of Book of Mormon stories during Book of Mormon timelines, but the Book of Mormon says it was.

About 200–187 B.C.
Mosiah 9:
16 And it came to pass that I did arm them with bows, and with arrows...

About 187–160 B.C.
Mosiah 10:
8 And it came to pass that they came up upon the north of the land of Shilom, with their numerous hosts, men armed with bows, and with arrows..

About 87 B.C.
Alma 2:
12 ..they did arm themselves with swords, and with cimeters, and with bows, and with arrows...

About 87–86 B.C.
Alma 3:
5 ...and their bows, and their arrows...

about 91 B.C.
Alma 17:
7 ...and their bows, and their arrows...

About 74 B.C.
Alma 43:
20 ...their bows and their arrows...

About 52–50 B.C.
Helaman 1:
14 ...with bows, and with arrows...

About A.D. 385
Mormon 6:
9 ...with the bow, and with the arrow...

Bofmgeography, how do you explain the missing bow and arrow?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: bofgeography, the bow and arrow in the BofM?
PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 4:45 pm 
Stake High Council

Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:55 am
Posts: 543
The usual archaeological arguments are that the bow and arrow reach Mexico fairly late. This arises primarily by dating the southward migration of the bow and arrow technology from the far north where one presumes the Inuit imported the technology either from Asia or possibly even Europe. So it's among the Inuit around 2000-1000 BCE and slowly works its way south until around 600 - 700 AD when it reaches the Mexico region.

The counter argument tends to depend upon the flint and obsidian heads and whether they were used by atlatls or bows. Unfortunately apologists tend to quote from pretty dated works arguing for bows. (I think the most recent is from the 1970's and ignores the general consensus that they were atlatls in the period before the post-classic era) That said there are some arguments to be had based upon the thickness of the rear of the tips that determines whether they were mounted on an atlatls, arrow, or spear. So far as I know there's not really strong evidence for pre-classical arrows although I suppose it's possible given that we only have tips and not the wood.

The other alternative is just that the word translated as bow or arrow refers to the atlatls and the Nephites adopted the words for bow and arrow to represent those terms in the Hebrew. The main problem with the solution is that some passages appear to be talking about the atlatls and gets translated as javelin. (See for example Alma 62:36) Also the main text for Nephite weaponry, Jarom 1:8, includes both bows and arrows as well as javelins and darts.

So while I expect there is an answer this is one of the places like certain metals where I don't think apologists have good answers at present.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: bofgeography, the bow and arrow in the BofM?
PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 5:33 pm 
Bell Ringer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 7:11 pm
Posts: 11711
Location: Notre-Dame de Paris (bell tower)
This petroglyph (my own image) is of an anthropomorphic image of a person using an atlatl (throwing stick). It's dated between 1,000 and 1,500 years ago. The bow was only adopted in the US around 500 AD. These dates are NOT a good support for Book of Mormon histories.
Image

There are mountains of evidence that disprove the Book of Mormon. There is zero evidence that supports it.

_________________
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.

"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: bofgeography, the bow and arrow in the BofM?
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 9:41 am 
First Presidency
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 2:10 am
Posts: 810
Thanks for the picture Quasimodo.

This is from a curriculum booklet for 4th to 6th graders, published by the National Park Service:

One surprising note about the Hopewell peoples is that they did not have bows and arrows. The link includes a good illustration of how the atlatl was thrown. The entire pamphlet is well worth reading.
https://archive.org/stream/peoplewhocam ... 6/mode/2up


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: bofgeography, the bow and arrow in the BofM?
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:55 am 
God

Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 10:51 pm
Posts: 6746
tapirrider wrote:
"the bow and arrow were adopted in the Ohio Valley between A.D. 300 and 400. During this period, large spear points were replaced by smaller arrowheads."
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories ... tures.html

Also see: Adoption of the Bow in Prehistoric North America, John H. Blitz, North American Archaeologist, Vol. 9(2), 1988
http://anthropology.ua.edu/reprints/22.pdf

The bow and arrow wasn't in the geographies of Book of Mormon stories during Book of Mormon timelines, but the Book of Mormon says it was.

About 200–187 B.C.
Mosiah 9:
16 And it came to pass that I did arm them with bows, and with arrows...

About 187–160 B.C.
Mosiah 10:
8 And it came to pass that they came up upon the north of the land of Shilom, with their numerous hosts, men armed with bows, and with arrows..

About 87 B.C.
Alma 2:
12 ..they did arm themselves with swords, and with cimeters, and with bows, and with arrows...

About 87–86 B.C.
Alma 3:
5 ...and their bows, and their arrows...

about 91 B.C.
Alma 17:
7 ...and their bows, and their arrows...

About 74 B.C.
Alma 43:
20 ...their bows and their arrows...

About 52–50 B.C.
Helaman 1:
14 ...with bows, and with arrows...

About A.D. 385
Mormon 6:
9 ...with the bow, and with the arrow...

Bofmgeography, how do you explain the missing bow and arrow?


Book of Mormon lands are Mesoamerica.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: bofgeography, the bow and arrow in the BofM?
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 12:54 pm 
Stake High Council

Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:55 am
Posts: 543
Quasimodo wrote:
This petroglyph (my own image) is of an anthropomorphic image of a person using an atlatl (throwing stick). It's dated between 1,000 and 1,500 years ago. The bow was only adopted in the US around 500 AD. These dates are NOT a good support for Book of Mormon histories.


Actually the northern Indians had it likely by at least 200 AD. The dating for the technology's adoption in Mexico is typically 600 AD - 700 AD. Still too late for the Book of Mormon but we should get the dates correct.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: bofgeography, the bow and arrow in the BofM?
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:12 pm 
Bell Ringer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 7:11 pm
Posts: 11711
Location: Notre-Dame de Paris (bell tower)
ClarkGoble wrote:
Quasimodo wrote:
This petroglyph (my own image) is of an anthropomorphic image of a person using an atlatl (throwing stick). It's dated between 1,000 and 1,500 years ago. The bow was only adopted in the US around 500 AD. These dates are NOT a good support for Book of Mormon histories.


Actually the northern Indians had it likely by at least 200 AD. The dating for the technology's adoption in Mexico is typically 600 AD - 700 AD. Still too late for the Book of Mormon but we should get the dates correct.


Not in the area where that image comes from. In the hundreds of petroglyphs I've seen in the Mojave Desert, I have only seen bows depicted in one or two in an area that has petroglyphs from a later era. If Native Americans are Lamanites, shouldn't bows have been used uniformly all across the Americas?

_________________
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.

"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: bofgeography, the bow and arrow in the BofM?
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:23 pm 
Stake High Council

Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:55 am
Posts: 543
Quasimodo wrote:
Not in the area where that image comes from. In the hundreds of petroglyphs I've seen in the Mojave Desert, I have only seen bows depicted in one or two in an area that has petroglyphs from a later era. If Native Americans are Lamanites, shouldn't bows have been used uniformly all across the Americas?


I don't think uniformity would be necessary under the Book of Mormon model if the Lehites were a small group that assimilated into a larger population. The problem for apologists is, if they take the view that some of the obsidian heads are actually arrowheads, is why the technology didn't persist? There were of course benefits to the atlatls over the bow and arrow yet when the technology later arrived in mesoAmerica it was fairly strongly embraced. Even if there were military benefits to the atlatls over the bow, the bow seemed unambiguously better for hunting.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: bofgeography, the bow and arrow in the BofM?
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 3:11 pm 
First Presidency
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 2:10 am
Posts: 810
ClarkGoble wrote:
Quasimodo wrote:
This petroglyph (my own image) is of an anthropomorphic image of a person using an atlatl (throwing stick). It's dated between 1,000 and 1,500 years ago. The bow was only adopted in the US around 500 AD. These dates are NOT a good support for Book of Mormon histories.


Actually the northern Indians had it likely by at least 200 AD. The dating for the technology's adoption in Mexico is typically 600 AD - 700 AD. Still too late for the Book of Mormon but we should get the dates correct.


200 AD is a little early. Check out the sources I linked to earlier, but even with a plus or minus 200 years, neither North America or Mesoamerica fall in any timeline for the Book of Mormon sources earlier than the time of Christ, even though the scripture sources I gave indicate that they should have had it, wherever in the Americas it was supposed to have happened. One of the evidences against the bow and arrow in that timeline, especially with the Hopewell, is not just the lack of arrow points but the type of injuries found in human remains. There is a definite evidence of bow and arrow injuries after the Hopewell culture declined, which corresponds with the archaeological record of arrow points. No arrow points and no bow and arrow injuries in the earlier Book of Mormon timeline. One could argue that toward the end of the Book of Mormon timeline the bow and arrow began showing up in the archaeological record but that just does not help. And the burial mounds also do not show massive numbers of human casualties in a short interval of time caused by bows and arrows in the 400 AD time period as should be expected if there was a massive war that caused the Hopewell culture to come to an end. It just isn't there. Bomgeography hasn't replied yet, maybe he won't.

What it really comes down to with the Book of Mormon is faith, which I don't have a problem with. It is the claims that aren't supported without cherry picking or misrepresenting that I don't like.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: bofgeography, the bow and arrow in the BofM?
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:15 pm 
Bell Ringer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 7:11 pm
Posts: 11711
Location: Notre-Dame de Paris (bell tower)
ClarkGoble wrote:
Quasimodo wrote:
Not in the area where that image comes from. In the hundreds of petroglyphs I've seen in the Mojave Desert, I have only seen bows depicted in one or two in an area that has petroglyphs from a later era. If Native Americans are Lamanites, shouldn't bows have been used uniformly all across the Americas?


I don't think uniformity would be necessary under the Book of Mormon model if the Lehites were a small group that assimilated into a larger population. The problem for apologists is, if they take the view that some of the obsidian heads are actually arrowheads, is why the technology didn't persist? There were of course benefits to the atlatls over the bow and arrow yet when the technology later arrived in mesoAmerica it was fairly strongly embraced. Even if there were military benefits to the atlatls over the bow, the bow seemed unambiguously better for hunting.


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

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

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

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

_________________
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.

"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: bofgeography, the bow and arrow in the BofM?
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:31 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 7:44 pm
Posts: 1636
The CCC wrote:
Book of Mormon lands are Mesoamerica.

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

_________________
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: bofgeography, the bow and arrow in the BofM?
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 5:02 pm 
Stake High Council

Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:55 am
Posts: 543
Quasimodo wrote:
So, your theory depends on a small group of Lamanites infusing into a large, existing population of Native Americans bringing their new bow technology with them? Just as an aside, I don't think a case can be made that atlatls were better military weapons than bows. Bows and arrows are much more accurate than atlatls. It's the difference between shooting a bullet from a gun and throwing a bullet from the end of a stick.


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


I have no problem with there being a few things I can't explain. I don't feel the need to have to have a solution for every problem. I can't reconcile GR with QR either yet I believe in both.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: bofgeography, the bow and arrow in the BofM?
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:08 pm 
First Presidency
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 2:10 am
Posts: 810
ClarkGoble wrote:

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


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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: bofgeography, the bow and arrow in the BofM?
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 8:35 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm
Posts: 7276
ClarkGoble wrote:

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

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

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

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

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: bofgeography, the bow and arrow in the BofM?
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 9:05 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:19 pm
Posts: 10945
Location: Multiverse
Lemmie wrote:
ClarkGoble wrote:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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







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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_________________
You have made this ludicrous assertion about Israelite religion in the New World. Produce one shred of non-faith based evidence to prove it. --Philip Jenkins


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: bofgeography, the bow and arrow in the BofM?
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 10:49 pm 
God

Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 10:51 pm
Posts: 6746
spotlight wrote:
The CCC wrote:
Book of Mormon lands are Mesoamerica.

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


Non response.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: bofgeography, the bow and arrow in the BofM?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 3:54 am 
First Presidency
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 2:10 am
Posts: 810
Maksutov wrote:
http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/LDS/ci_7403990

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

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







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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

FAIR addressed who are descendants with this:

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

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

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

This is what started me out of the church. It really isn't fair to blame members for their confusion over who the Book of Mormon people are today. The church caused this by not being clear and bold in maintaining the doctrine that has been taught since 1830.


Last edited by tapirrider on Thu Mar 23, 2017 4:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: bofgeography, the bow and arrow in the BofM?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 3:54 am 
First Presidency
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 2:10 am
Posts: 810
deleted duplicate


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: bofgeography, the bow and arrow in the BofM?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 8:32 am 
Stake High Council

Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:55 am
Posts: 543
Lemmie wrote:
ClarkGoble wrote:
The church doesn't have an official position beyond some natives were descended from Lamanites.

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


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


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


You don't think that's an overreaction?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: bofgeography, the bow and arrow in the BofM?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 11:14 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 9:49 am
Posts: 8165
Location: Somewhere between bemused and curious.
ClarkGoble wrote:
You don't think that's an overreaction?



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

I do not think Lemmie is overreacting at all.

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

As one tribal leader put it:

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


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

For more information see
Indian Child Welfare Act

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


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

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

So no, I do not think Lemmie is overreacting and I have looked into this very issue. For a religious group that is founded on a book whose purported purpose was to bring God's lost children back to Him, our actual behavior toward the native Americans has been pretty much the same as any other group of American immigrants: kill them, drive them out, and or assimilate them.

_________________
"The lives we lead now are not dress rehearsals, they are the only performance we have. Therefore what matters is what we have here, the people we know and and love and the good we can do for the world"
Sean Carroll


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: bofgeography, the bow and arrow in the BofM?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 2:05 pm 
Bell Ringer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 7:11 pm
Posts: 11711
Location: Notre-Dame de Paris (bell tower)
I post this image whenever we touch on these subjects. It's before and after photos of a Navajo boy that was forcefully seperated from his family and sent to the Carlisle School.

You can tell in the first photo that his mom dressed him up in his best stuff when they came to take him away. He looks magnificent! Native Americans sure had a sense of style.

The second image shows what they did to him. They were trying to show an improvement. They tossed his fantastic jewelry and amazing clothes and dressed him "European" style. If you notice, they printed his fleshtones darkly in the first photo and his fleshtones much lighter in the second. He was becoming white and delightsome. :rolleyes:
Image

_________________
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.

"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group