Preface: All cultures generate folklore, and Mormonism as a culture generates its fair share. Please understand that cultural folklore is not necessarily the same as religious beliefs. For example, some beliefs from "Mormon" culture simply contradict or have no strong foundation in the Book of Mormon. As such, these beliefs need reevaluation. I give three case examples.
Case #1: Some think that all Native Americans are descendants of Laman.
There is no strong scriptural foundation for claiming that modern Native Americans have a biological relationship with Laman in the Book of Mormon. The evidence we have from the Book of Mormon would dilute this claim significantly, if not completely.
For example, the Zoramites were formerly Nephites who dissented and joined the Lamanites (see Alma 31: 8 and Alma 43: 4). Also, Alma 17: 19-21 makes it clear that some “Lamanites” were actually descendants of Ishmael. The point is that the term “Lamanite” in the Book of Mormon referred to a political alliance with a significant mixture of peoples.
The Book of Mormon also makes it clear that there were probably many migrations. The Jaredites (mostly from the Book of Ether) migrated sometime between 3100 to 1750 B.C. and then collapsed as a civilization sometime between 586 and 130 B.C. (see Book of Mormon Reference Companion, p. 436). The “people of Zarahemla” (often called the Mulekites) were descendants from the King of Judah, Zedekiah, and they represented another migration (e.g., see Omni 1: 14-21) independent of Lehi’s migration. Were there other migrations that were not recorded and about which we know nothing? I would answer without hesitation in the affirmative.
Also, there is NO good reason to assume that Book of Mormon peoples dominated all of North, Central, and South Americas. In fact, the Book of Mormon Reference Companion (p. 289) says, most LDS scholars “locate all [italics mine] of the Book of Mormon cities and geographical features in Mesoamerica” (Central America). Regardless, the continental doors were never closed, and thus other peoples flowed into the Americas. Genetic studies of Native Indians indicate that important migrations came from Asia. Such genetic studies suggest that at least a couple of Asian migrations between 30 to 20 thousand years ago and 9 to 7 thousand years ago. Of particular importance is a study by Wang et al. (2007), which confirms a Siberian connection. Even so, the DNA of modern Native Americans is a melted pot of past cultures.
Let's make something clear. The Book of Mormon is NOT precise enough to make either genealogical or DNA predictions about Native Americans in general. It simply makes NONE at all. The newest Doubleday (2006 2nd Edition) Book of Mormon may have recognized this fact about the Lamanites when it revised the "Introduction" page, which is an insertion written by modern editors. In the older edition the Lamanites were described as "the principal ancestors of the American Indians." In the second edition the words "the principal" were removed. Apparently, this change will carry over to future LDS editions as well.
Going by the findings of modern genetics, the principal ancestors of modern Native Americans are Siberian (Asian). The Book of Mormon account of a possible Hebrew connection has not been verified. However, there can never be a DNA analysis of Book of Mormon lineages. The main characters in the Book of Mormon, Lehi, Nephi, and Laman, did NOT provide DNA samples for analysis. We know these individuals were from the House of Manasseh from one verse (Alma 10:3). Such information is NOT a precise genealogy. Lehi could have had some Asian relatives for all we know.
In sum, science informs us that modern Native Americans primarily derive from Asia, and any additional information provided by the Book of Mormon about genealogy is imprecise and extremely vague.
Consequently, Latter-day Saints should not automatically assume all Native Americans are principally Lamanites. Besides, all of us are a mixture of peoples. As such, DNA tests of genealogy have their limits. The Book of Mormon makes no DNA predictions. Consequently, DNA scientists should NOT give the public the impression that the Book of Mormon can be tested by their methods. Additionally, Latter-day Saints should be careful about using the label "Lamanite."
Case #2: Some think the Lamanites were the “bad guys” in the Book of Mormon.
Individuals holding this claim need to study the Book of Mormon, which says, for example:
Jacob 3:5, 9
5 Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you [the Nephites]; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord … .
9 Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness… .
"Good guys" and "bad guys" often switch in the Book of Mormon, but verse 9 above is the ultimate statement in anti-racism: To paraphrase, “This is the word of God that you do NOT hate anyone because of skin color or because you think someone is filthy. Instead, just remember your own filthiness.”
President John Taylor said the following:
John Taylor, Journal of Discourses 21:16, February 8th, 1880:
How does God feel towards the human family? He feels that they are his children. What, all? Yes, the white, the black, the red, the Jew, the gentile, the heathen, the Christian, and all classes and grades of men. He feels interested in all. He has done so from the beginning and will continue to do so to the end.
Racism should have no place in society. It is COMPLETELY dysfunctional. It can have NO PLACE in the gospel of Christ. Racism is contrary to the very foundations of Christ's teachings. Study how Jesus treated the Samaritan woman at the well.
Case #3: Some think that Quetzalcoatl was Jesus Christ.
Latter-day Saints do believe that Jesus Christ visited the Americas shortly after His resurrection (see 3rd Nephi). Some Latter-day Saints have wondered whether the story of Quetzalcoatl, a bearded white god, was derived from the American visit of Christ.
LDS President John Taylor did write the following:
John Taylor, Mediation and Atonement, APPENDIX
The story of the life of the Mexican divinity, Quetzalcoatl, closely resembles that of the Savior; so closely, indeed, that we can come to no other conclusion than that Quetzalcoatl and Christ are the same being. But the history of the former … perverted the original incidents and teachings of the Savior's life and ministry.
President Taylor identifies parallels with Jesus like, “Quetzalcoatl … was born of Chimelman, the virgin of Tula (without man).” However, modern scholarship has not found convincing evidence for this claim (see Wirth, 2002, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 11). In fact, the claim of virgin birth appears to be a later Spanish insertion. In other words, even the early Catholic Spaniards wanted the “Quetzalcoatl = Jesus” equation, and thus they may have manufactured it. True, Quetzalcoatl was a bearded white-faced God who said he would one day return. However, modern scholarship has much to sort out between fact and fantasy. Even the Book of Mormon Reference Companion, which almost always does an excellent job of scholarship, failed to identify the weaknesses of the Jesus / Quetzalcoatl correlation. We LDS want to find Book of Mormon correlations with Mesoamerican archeology and its ancient legends. Desire does not make it so.
William J. Hamblin is a BYU scholar whose opinions I often like. He stated [emphasis is mine]:
William J. Hamblin, "Archeology and the Book of Mormon"Farms Review , 1993
[M]any Latter-day Saints have posited some type of relationship between the Mesoamerican god Quetzalcoatl (“feathered serpent” …) and the resurrected Savior in the Americas. … If there is any relationship between Quetzalcoatl and Christ, it is clearly overlaid with numerous historical, mythical, and legendary strata, which are essentially impossible to unravel Any proposed relationship must therefore remain tentative and speculative, but potentially interesting.
A few points should be emphasized. First, the Book of Mormon makes no reference to this deity. The possible relation between Christ and Quetzalcoatl is a speculative interpretation by modern readers. It may or may not be correct. Second, there were at least two major Quetzalcoatls, one being an ancient god, and another a Toltec priest named Ce Acatl Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl. There is confusion between the god and the mortal in Aztec, Spanish, and modern sources. Third, the idea and iconography of a “feathered serpent” god can be traced back to Olmec times (c. 1200–400 B.C.), and was widespread in Teotihuacan in the third century A.D. Thus at least some elements of the Quetzalcoatl mythology date back to Book of Mormon times. Fourth, the differences between the Quetzalcoatl myths and the depiction of Christ in the Book of Mormon are unfortunately often ignored by some Latter-day Saint writers. I personally find the Quetzalcoatl parallels interesting but not convincing; … [they have] little to do with the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. The only question at issue is the validity of some modern Latter-day Saint interpretations.
The Quetzalcoatl data are too sketchy to draw definitive conclusions. What is the danger in believing that Quetzalcoatl equals Jesus? I think the danger is that the more we study Quetzalcoatl the more we will see that the parallels fall apart. As they fall apart, some may blame this on the Church or President Taylor or the Book of Mormon. Yes, the Quetzalcoatl story is an interesting one. However, any teaching about Quetzacoatl to others in a Church setting should be prefaced with the remarks, “This is speculation, not from doctrine or scripture.”
Conclusion: We must know the Book of Mormon in order to battle myths. Regardless, the real purpose of the Book of Mormon is simply to teach Christ. Elder Russell M. Nelson said (cited in: Book of Mormon Reference Companion, p. 2), “By comparison, all other issues are incidental. …” One great purpose of the Book of Mormon is to learn to be like Jesus. Its purpose is NOT to be a complete history of the American Indian.
Copyright 2008 S.Faux (Email: foxgoku54 [at] gmail [d0t] c0m; URL: http://mormoninsights.blogspot.com). Readers may distribute this post for noncommercial purposes provided such distributing is of the entire post, including author's copyright and contact information. All other rights reserved.
Please feel free to give my blog site a "Blogged.com" rating and review by clicking here.
Support Mormon Insights by making a COMMENT.
3 comments:
Have you studied the Lemba tribe in Africa that has traced DNA to ancient Jews?
How about D&C 28 and the Prophet Spencer W. Kimball's patriarchal blessing and life work?
Isn't it wrong to assume who might or might not be?
The DNA tie to Siberia raises the issue of co-adamites. Being tied to living groups, this is very dangerous in terms of historical racism.
Anonymous:
My point is that the term "Lamanite" in the Book of Mormon had about the same function as "Republican" in our modern society. Thus, I do not use the term as a label for any living peoples.
Post a Comment