Surviving Jaredite Names in Mesoamerica

Bonnie

Super Member
You’ve been ignoring my post about that...


”He has revealed...” Who do you think “He” is?

“He has revealed the origin and the Records of the aboriginal tribes of America, and their future destiny. —And we know it. He has revealed the fulness of the gospel, with its gifts, blessings, and ordinances. —And we know it. He has commanded us to bear witness of it, first to the Gentiles and then to the remnants of Israel and the Jews. —And we know it. He has commanded us to gather together his Saints on this Continent, and build up holy cities and sanctuaries.”

That says God revealed who the native Americans are. It’s referring to the Book of Mormon. It says exactly what you asked. You can’t weasel out of that.
And the stuff I quoted and bolded also says that the Indians came from the Lamanites. So does the Introduction to the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon. Interesting, no?
 

Bonnie

Super Member
Well, since we're arguing Mormonism, I would think that material from a Mormon website would be more accurate. That makes sense to me. Far more sense than going to a non-Mormon propaganda website that doesn't accurately quote its sources. I have demonstrated this. It's not worth it.
I have quoted stuff on here directly from lds.org to prove that your church DOES teach what I claimed it did--such as HF and HM have spirit children, not physical children,, and that Smith DID actually marry other women, even ones who already had husbands, and still I wasn't believed. Instead the Mormons had to make so many excuses and deny, deny, deny....to keep their "testimony" to their church and false founding prophet.

Mrm.org and utlm.org have tons of Mormon writings and are quoted in some context and thoroughly cited. They are perfectly accurate. When I have been able to find the Mormon source they came from, online, I can see that the quotes are accurate.

Here is another website with a lot of information in it. This is about the archaeology of the BoM in the Americas:

The Scientific Search for Nephite Remains | Mormons in Transition (irr.org)
 
Last edited:

imJRR

Well-known member
I have quoted stuff on here directly from lds.org to prove that your church DOES teach what I claimed it did--such as HF and HM have spirit children, and that Smith DID actually marry other women, even ones who already had husbands, and still I wasn't believed. Instead the Mormons had to make so many excuses and deny, deny, deny....to keep their "testimony" to their church and false founding prophet.

Mrm.org and utlm.org have tons of Mormon writings and are quoted in some context and thoroughly cited. They are perfectly accurate. When I have been able to find the Mormon source they came from, online, I can see that the quotes are accurate.

Here is another website with a lot of information in it. This is about the archaeology of the BoM in the Americas:

The Scientific Search for Nephite Remains | Mormons in Transition (irr.org)

Well, that website very nicely addresses the Archaeology thread. There is no substantiation/evidence/proof.

Thanks, Bonnie.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
Well, that website very nicely addresses the Archaeology thread. There is no substantiation/evidence/proof.

Thanks, Bonnie.
You are welcome. I wonder how much cognitive dissonance is going off among Mormons who objectively read these links. It must be horribly scary to realize that they and their church might just be wrong, and they have been believing in lies. But they need to realize that their IS life, a good life, outside the LDS church. And it is in the true Jesus Christ of the Bible, who did all that was necessary to give us eternal life, as a gift.
 

John t

Super Member
Only Smith and God knows what was going on inside that hat.
You blaspheme the God of the Bible with that one! There is no evidence in the Bible whereby the God of the Bible ever used a solitary rock to give a message. And do not try to bring inn Luke 19: 40 as an example. When Jesus said that, he was rebuking the Pharisees about their complaining about His triumphal entry into Jerusalem on what was to be known as Palm Sunday.

Some mormons gotta have rocks in one's head to believe that crap about Smith, and "mormo-god was speaking to give a ficticious narrative.
 

Mesenja

Active member
The Bering Strait hypothesis does not completely account for the origins of Native Americans.

The Book of Mormon does not claim that its peoples were the only groups present in the Americas. There are, in fact, indications in the Book of Mormon itself to the contrary, leaving room for great diversity in the racial characteristics of Native Americans. The Smithsonian Statement asserts that American Indians are "basically Mongoloid" in origin. However, as John Sorenson has shown, there are factors for which the strictly Mongoloid hypothesis cannot account [Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, 87-91]. Juan Comas emphatically asserts that Amerindians are not a biologically homogeneous group [Juan Comas, "Son los Amerindios un grupo biologicamente homogeneo?" Cuadernos Americanos, 152 (May-June 1967): 117-25]. Other experts such as G. Albin Matson have agreed that "the American Indians are not completely Mongoloid" [G. Albin Matson et al., "Distribution of Hereditary Blood Groups among Indians in South America," American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 27 (1967): 188]. Ernest Hooten of Harvard University believed that Near Easterners may have been a factor in Amerindian racial diversity [Harold Gladwin, Men Out of Asia (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1947), 63-65]. Kirk Magelby has drawn attention to numerous Mesoamerican bearded figures that look more Near Eastern than Mongoloid [Kirk Magelby, "A Survey of Mesoamerican Bearded Figures," F.A.R.M.S. preliminary report, 1979]. Polish anthropologist Andrzej Wiercinski has analyzed numerous skulls from major Mesoamerican sites and suggested that the diversity in specimens can be partially explained by the influence of "migrants from the Western Mediterranean area." He surmises that "ancient Mexico was inhabited by a chain of interrelated populations which cannot be regarded as typical Mongoloids" [Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, 88-89]. Contrary to what the Smithsonian Statement implies, the Book of Mormon allows room for such diversity. Matthew Roper, Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 4, 1992, p. 210
 
Last edited:

Bonnie

Super Member
The Bering Strait hypothesis does not completely account for the origins of Native Americans.
Except DNA studies have shown that Native Americans come mostly from Eastern Siberia, with some from Central Siberia. NOT the Middle East.
I thought you knew the BoM and had read it....? Because in my 1981 edition of the BoM, it says, under the "Introduction" part says that "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."

No, "who we understand are..." But exactly as I put down on here. Your claim about "who we understand are" is just sheer desperation to avoid seeing what you do not wish to see.

So, if it isn't true, then why is it in the BoM? And BTW--no one claimed here that I know of, that your church teaches that ALL the Indians are descendants of the Laminites. But the BoM does say that the Lamanites are the PRINCIPAL ancestors of the American Indians.
Deleted
 

Bonnie

Super Member
I thought you knew the BoM and had read it....? Because in my 1981 edition of the BoM, it says, under the "Introduction" part says that "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."

No, "who we understand are..." But exactly as I put down on here. Your claim about "who we understand are" is just sheer desperation to avoid seeing what you do not wish to see.

So, if it isn't true, then why is it in the BoM? And BTW--no one claimed here that I know of, that your church teaches that ALL the Indians are descendants of the Laminites. But the BoM does say that the Lamanites are the PRINCIPAL ancestors of the American Indians.
More for you about this Lamanite stuff:

Mormon Apostle James Talmage noted that, “The Nephites suffered extinction about 400 A.D., but the Lamanites lived on in their degraded course, and are today extant upon the land as the American Indians” (Jesus the Christ, 23rd ed., p.49).

Tenth LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote in his book Doctrines of Salvation that this connection is also noted in Doctrine and Covenants 3:264: “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.'”

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism, under the subtitle “Native Americans,” states that “the Book of Mormon tells that a small band of Israelites under Lehi migrated from Jerusalem to the Western Hemisphere about 600 B.C. Upon Lehi’s death his family divided into two opposing factions, one under Lehi’s oldest son, Laman (see Lamanites), and the other under a younger son, Nephi” (3:981).[/B]

So,did Talmadge lie?



To continue:

Other Nations”?
First, let’s examine the claim that the offspring of the Lehi party intermarried with another culture. In 2 Nephi 1:6 Lehi prophesies “that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord.” He goes on to state in verses 8-9, “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.”

Sounds as if no one else was in the new lands except the peoples listed in the BoM.

We learn from this that no other nation had knowledge of this land at the time of the arrival of Lehi’s party, thus excluding the notion that other cultures shared the same area. We also learn that such an arrangement would continue as long as those who were brought out of Jerusalem continued to keep God’s commandments. However, should the people “dwindle in unbelief,” God would bring “other nations unto them and he will give unto them power, and he will take away from them the lands of their possessions, and he will cause them to be scattered and smitten” (vv. 10,11). As to when exactly such an incursion would take place is not specified in the prophecy....

While I agree that both the Nephites and Lamanites had their times of unbelief, the Book of Mormon fails to mentions other nations who came in to “take away from them the lands of their possessions,” especially those whose genetic makeup would take us to Asia. This can only be argued from silence.

J. Reuben Clark, writing for the LDS magazine Improvement Era, stated, “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” (“Prophecies, Penalties, and Blessings,” Improvement Era, 1940, Vol. xliii. July, 1940. No. 7). Several LDS leaders have stated that this was fulfilled when the Gentiles came to America.

Again, does NOT sound as if other people came to NA during BoM times to intermingle their DNA. Not until later, after the Nephites were extinct. That would be the Vikings and the Spanish. :)
 
Last edited:

brotherofJared

Well-known member
There is no exact quote you are asking for.
That's what I thought.
But that is just your way to keep from having to deal with the fact that your church has taught that the Indians are the descendants of the Lamanites.
That's not a problem for me. We learn as we grow. ;) If that was your question in the beginning, I'd have no problem with it, but that's not what you said. Yes. The church believed, though I know of no church leader that said it was a God-given fact, nor does it appear that Joseph Smith ever taught it.

The fact of this issue is that you are reading into the narrative what you want. It's simply not there. As I stated, everyone is entitled to their opinions but that does not make them facts.
And Maggie proved it from that link that she posted and I showed where it did in fact say something like that.
I must have missed it. Did I post that you were reading into it or are you talking about a different post?
In fact, doesn't the forepart of the BoM say that the Lamanites are one of the ancestors of the American Indians? Or something similar?
Yep, or something to that effect. But, just in case you forgot what the argument was about. This is the statement I refuted: "Mormon prophets used to teach that all native Americans were Lamanites." Do you see the word "all" in there? Do you know what that means? Does the statement in the forepart of the BoM even come close to making that claim? So, Mormon prophets used to teach that? I'm still waiting. To be clear, we're talking about all native Americans and statements from Mormon prophets (and even Mormon prophets can have opinions. The only time becomes a doctrine of the church is when the prophet says God said it. ;))

As I said, I have no problem that many early Mormons used to believe that all American Indians were Lamanites (and they might actually be, depends on what the Book of Mormon classifies as Lamanites - it's not very clear. I personally suspect that the Lamanites intermingled with the indigenous peoples in the area, diluting the bloodline to a point that all dark-skinned people were considered Lamanites regardless of who their parents were. But that's just my opinion.)

But the keywords here are "used to". We used to believe the earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe and everything revolved around it and not that it revolved around the Sun. There are lots of things that we "used to" believe. But it doesn't make it a fact. The fact that there were other indigenous peoples on this continent before Lehi arrived doesn't present any problems for the Book of Mormon. There are no Nephites left. The Lamanites, whoever they were, were like a drop of fresh water in the Pacific ocean. Good luck trying to find it.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
I thought you knew the BoM and had read it....? Because in my 1981 edition of the BoM, it says, under the "Introduction" part says that "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."
Yep. I have to wonder who the other ancestors were. As I said, our leaders are entitled to their opinions. it doesn't make it a fact.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
You’ve been ignoring my post about that...
I have?
“He has revealed the origin and the Records of the aboriginal tribes of America, and their future destiny. —And we know it. He has revealed the fulness of the gospel, with its gifts, blessings, and ordinances. —And we know it. He has commanded us to bear witness of it, first to the Gentiles and then to the remnants of Israel and the Jews. —And we know it. He has commanded us to gather together his Saints on this Continent, and build up holy cities and sanctuaries.”
First off, there was no prophet of the church when this was written. I don't know who the author is but as I stated, it was believed by most, if not all, of the church in the early days. I don't see where it says, thus saith the Lord. I said that even the leaders of the church are entitled to their opinions and no one can doubt that they know it. But the fact remains that we "used to" believe that. It didn't make it true. It certainly isn't true that God revealed the aboriginal tribes of America unless he was talking about the Jaredites. I can't see how there were people on this continent after the flood if it was a worldwide flood.

But we can guess what he meant all day long. Was he talking about Lamanites? He doesn't say, does he?

You're reading into it as is expected would be done by those who have an animus to support.

If you will recall, I pointed out the words "used to". There are lots of things people "used to" believe but that doesn't make them true. I'm going to need something a little more concrete like "thus saith the Lord" because "He revealed the origin and the records of the aboriginal tribes of America" just isn't concrete enough, though it probably is to you.

We just don't have enough information about the Olmecs or Jaredites to know if there was another source, but I think we're pretty sure by now that they didn't come from Russia over an ice bridge 100K years ago. If you believe the Bible, they would have all died in Noah's day, right? You believe the Bible, right? Well, I'm sure you believe some version of it. or at least parts of it.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
The Bering Strait hypothesis does not completely account for the origins of Native Americans.
I guess Native Americans are Asians. :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

I probably need to clarify, I'm not making fun of your post, but I believe it's pretty clear that Asians are Mongoloid. Europeans aren't.
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
I have?

First off, there was no prophet of the church when this was written. I don't know who the author is but as I stated, it was believed by most, if not all, of the church in the early days. I don't see where it says, thus saith the Lord. I said that even the leaders of the church are entitled to their opinions and no one can doubt that they know it. But the fact remains that we "used to" believe that. It didn't make it true. It certainly isn't true that God revealed the aboriginal tribes of America unless he was talking about the Jaredites. I can't see how there were people on this continent after the flood if it was a worldwide flood.

But we can guess what he meant all day long. Was he talking about Lamanites? He doesn't say, does he?

You're reading into it as is expected would be done by those who have an animus to support.

If you will recall, I pointed out the words "used to". There are lots of things people "used to" believe but that doesn't make them true. I'm going to need something a little more concrete like "thus saith the Lord" because "He revealed the origin and the records of the aboriginal tribes of America" just isn't concrete enough, though it probably is to you.

We just don't have enough information about the Olmecs or Jaredites to know if there was another source, but I think we're pretty sure by now that they didn't come from Russia over an ice bridge 100K years ago. If you believe the Bible, they would have all died in Noah's day, right? You believe the Bible, right? Well, I'm sure you believe some version of it. or at least parts of it.
You obviously didn’t open the link and read the article.

 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
You obviously didn’t open the link and read the article.
It's obvious you didn't read my post.

I didn't follow your link, but I have read it. I found it on my own. What do you think, in that link says anything different than what I posted? The reference you quoted says nothing about Lamanites being the aboriginals. The statement was by the apostles, not a prophet because at that time there was no prophet, president.

That's what I said in my post which exactly correlates with that quote. Try to keep up.
 
Top