Status of Lamanites?

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The exchange in the other thread about the arguably misguided good inentions of the Indian Placement Program, and memory of George P. Lee and his image as a Seventy, made me wonder: Is it fair to say the LDS church has for all intents and purposes abandoned the theology that Native Americans are all descendants of Lehi? I'm not being snarky, seriously wondering. It seems to me that if anything part of the apologist strategy is to make greatly less ambitious claims regarding Book of Mormon historicity (FARMS excluded). Do Church leaders ever refer to Native Americans as Lamanites anymore? I bet there's a letter on this somewhere from the First Presidency.

It's discussed here:
http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/ind...004e94610aRCRD

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

If they're making major changes, I wish they'd go to a better Bible translation than the KJV.

Because that would impact familiarity with the BoM, I am doubtful they would do that.

In other languages, we aren't so tied to one translation thankfully.

One thing I hadn't thought of, in the Isaiah portions, do we simply insert with modifications the Isaiah portions from that language's standard Bible, or do we endeavor to translate the feel of the KJV in the BoM?

Does anybody know the answer? I'll go home at look at my German, French and Spanish.

What do they do in Japanese?

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Because that would impact familiarity with the BoM, I am doubtful they would do that.

In other languages, we aren't so tied to one translation thankfully.

One thing I hadn't thought of, in the Isaiah portions, do we simply insert with modifications the Isaiah portions from that language's standard Bible, or do we endeavor to translate the feel of the KJV in the BoM?

Does anybody know the answer? I'll go home at look at my German, French and Spanish.

What do they do in Japanese?

In Chinese the BoM Isaiah is translated directly from the English BoM, not modifications from the Chinese Bible.

[Indy Coug]

IMO, this is an extremely important finding:

Examining the same Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA markers used in other genetic studies, these 131,060 Icelanders revealed highly skewed distributions of descendants to ancestors, with the vast majority of potential ancestors contributing one or no descendants and a minority of ancestors contributing large numbers of descendants.6 In other words, the majority of people living today in Iceland had ancestors living only 150 years ago that could not be detected based on the Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA tests being performed yet the genealogical records exist showing that these people lived and were real ancestors. To the point at hand, if many documented ancestors of 150 years ago cannot be seen with Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA tests from modern Iceland, then the possibility can exist for people that are reported in the Book of Mormon to have migrated to the Americas over 2600 years ago and yet not have detectable genetic signatures today.

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/dn...NA_Feb2006.php

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

IMO, this is an extremely important finding:



http://farms.byu.edu/publications/dn...NA_Feb2006.php

I'm aware of that, as I remember when the BYU professor was interviewed by the LA Times discussed that study. Clearly the assertion of Cohen mitochondria representation is overblown. When it's raised, I've asserted the same.

But apologists now exclusively focus upon a limited geography theory which did not previous to the Australian's genetic study.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by All-American

That's my understanding, anyway. The current publication of the Bible was done in 1979, I believe, with the Book of Mormon et al. published in a similar format in 1981.

Interestingly enough, my Pearl of Great Price teacher told the class that preparations are underway for a new publication of the scriptures. One of the differences that we will see is drastically reduced chapter headings and a reformed footnote system. He specifically cited excessive interpretation as a reason for the change to the chapter headings, though no names were mentioned. Thought that was interesting.

would that be brm's excessive interpretation? Didn't he write most of them? Or is that just Mormon urban legend?

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

If they're making major changes, I wish they'd go to a better Bible translation than the KJV.

The funny thing is the KJV is really not a good translation, and the NRSV is probably the best one out there according to most scholars, and it really makes the favorite Mormon verses appear even better, BUT the mullahs will probably defend the KJV tooth and nail without even knowing why.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by BlueK

would that be brm's excessive interpretation? Didn't he write most of them? Or is that just Mormon urban legend?

I've never heard this reported except by second or third hand sources, but the general consensus is that Elder McKonkie was the head of the committee and was primarily responsible for the chapter headings.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by BlueK

The funny thing is the KJV is not a good translation and the NRSV is probably the best one out there according to most scholars and it really makes the favorite Mormon verses appear even better, BUT the mullahs will defend the KJV tooth and nail and they really don't even know why.

Arguing about which translation is best is like arguing whether it's better to lose by 2 or by 9.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by All-American

I've never heard this reported except by second or third hand sources, but the general consensus is that Elder McKonkie was the head of the committee and was primarily responsible for the chapter headings.

Originally Posted by BlueK

would that be brm's excessive interpretation? Didn't he write most of them? Or is that just Mormon urban legend?

I don't want to imply that the headings reflect excess interpretation (that's up you to decide) but Bruce McConkie did produce them:

QUESTION: Who is responsible for the little informational headings preceding each chapter in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price?

ROBERT J. MATTHEWS: I would be glad to tell you who did that ... I think it would be no breach of etiquette or of confidentiality if I were to say with pleasure that Elder Bruce R. McConkie produced those headings.

Source: Millet, Robert L. and Monte S. Nyman (editors), 1994, "The JST: Retrospect and Prospect--A Panel", Joseph Smith Translation: The Restoration of Plain and Precious Things, Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 300-301.

The following quote is less explicit than the first but indicates largely the same thing.

Readers will probably first notice new chapter headings summarizing the contents of each chapter rather than the running heads along the page tops of previous versions. Prepared by Elder McConkie, these headings are especially helpful to Latter-day Saints. For example, the chapter heading for Isaiah 29 links this prophecy to the Nephites and the Book of Mormon, which Isaiah is saying will come forth in the future. "The typesetters had a few questions for us on that one!" said Sister Knowles.

Source: Anderson, Lavina Fielding, 1979, "Church Publishes First LDS Edition of the Bible," Ensign, Oct 1979, 9.