Difference between revisions of "Talk:Book of Mormon DNA"
m (→BOM Introduction: Lamanites principal ancestors of American Indians?) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
The misconception is not only created in the unofficial and popular readings of the Book of Mormon, but also on the Introduction page, written by church authorities, which stated (until 2006) that "the Lamanites, ...are the principal ancestors of the American Indians." The new introduction, as discussed in the [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695226008,00.html Deseret News]reads that those in the Book of Mormon "are among the ancestors of the American Indians." However, the [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/introduction online version of the Introduction] on the LDS Web site still reads the 'old' way. So let's not foist the misconception off on the uninformed masses. I'm making some changes to the article based on all this. | The misconception is not only created in the unofficial and popular readings of the Book of Mormon, but also on the Introduction page, written by church authorities, which stated (until 2006) that "the Lamanites, ...are the principal ancestors of the American Indians." The new introduction, as discussed in the [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695226008,00.html Deseret News]reads that those in the Book of Mormon "are among the ancestors of the American Indians." However, the [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/introduction online version of the Introduction] on the LDS Web site still reads the 'old' way. So let's not foist the misconception off on the uninformed masses. I'm making some changes to the article based on all this. | ||
| + | --[[User:Jerekson|Jerekson]] 23:49, 10 November 2007 (MST) | ||
==According to Experts...=== | ==According to Experts...=== | ||
Revision as of 23:49, 10 November 2007
BOM Introduction: Lamanites principal ancestors of American Indians?
The article states: "Perhaps the controversy begins with an unofficial and individually assumed idea about the geographical location of the events portrayed in the Book of Mormon. Many Mormons and non-Mormons have read the book and assumed that no one else was on the American continent when Lehi and his company arrived; from this misconception it would be easy to assume Lehi and his wife were the parents of all human inhabitants in North and South America; it would also be possible to imagine that this group of people and their operations encompassed the whole of the western hemisphere."
The misconception is not only created in the unofficial and popular readings of the Book of Mormon, but also on the Introduction page, written by church authorities, which stated (until 2006) that "the Lamanites, ...are the principal ancestors of the American Indians." The new introduction, as discussed in the Deseret Newsreads that those in the Book of Mormon "are among the ancestors of the American Indians." However, the online version of the Introduction on the LDS Web site still reads the 'old' way. So let's not foist the misconception off on the uninformed masses. I'm making some changes to the article based on all this. --Jerekson 23:49, 10 November 2007 (MST)
According to Experts...=
Please offer some citations here on limited geographical scope. The article reads very poorly with phrases like this inserted, but not backed up.
In addition, I have read some assertions that the entire geographical setting fits well into the Great Lakes area of the US, with the expanses of water, and the 'narrow neck' of land dividing the land being easily notable. While the scale and grandeur of the Mesoamerican ruins make them attractive settings for the Book of Mormon, the Mesoamerican location rises from a limited and limiting perspective. Articles like Matthew Roper's, Limited Geography and the Book of Mormon: Historical Antecedents and Early Interpretations (Farms, 2004) provide extensive detail on the source of popular notions and misconceptions, but still seems to hold doggedly to the Mesoamerican location. The study of the locations and their sizes should likely be considered in light of the emerging views on how to interpret the actual size of the populations involved (i.e., were the numbers of people given in the text systematically figurative, as many such numbers are in other ancient texts, or were they absolutely literal?). If the actual numbers of people are unknown, then the location and scope of the geography is less easy to narrow down. --Jerekson 23:48, 10 November 2007 (MST)
