Status of Lamanites?

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

IMO, this is an extremely important finding:



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

I knew this guy when he was a nerdy undergrad at BYU with dreams of being a forensic chemist. Good to see that he's done well for himself. Big BYU football fan too.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by pelagius

SIEQ gave some nice background, but here is what some of the footnotes actually say. This is from a Book of Mormon I own printed in 1908 which means it is an 1879 edition done by Orson Pratt. For example, On page 155 footnote g reads, “The land Nephi is supposed to have been near Ecuador, South America” and footnote h reads, “The land Zarahemla is supposed to have been north of the head waters of the Magdelena, its northern boundary being a few days’ journey south of the isthmus.”

I am not sure they are salacious, but they are hemispheric.

I'm not meaning to imply they're salacious--just that the material that accompanies the BoM record, like intros, chapter descriptions, and footnotes, changes with some frequency. The 1981 intro's claim about "the principal ancestors of the American Indians" could very possibly be altered in a subsequent edition.

As for the models of BoM geography, I've followed those discussions pretty closely and find none of them adequate (the limited geography/Meso-America, the hemispheric, and the Great Lakes being major ones). I don't have a dog in the hunt, though.

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

The Maxwell Institute has the footnotes being from 1879 until 1920. They're probably right.

Here's a bit on it from the Maxwell Institute (FARMS):

....
I find it interesting that Pratt's notes are in the BoM for decades until the Church decided that it "clearly had no authoritative stance on what was, and remains, an open issue." No doubt many Mormons took their presence in the BoM as at least fairly authoritative, sort of the way people have taken McConkie's chapter summaries for the 1981 edition. Pratt was edited and most probably McConkie will be too (eventually).

Originally Posted by pelagius

SIEQ gave some nice background, but here is what some of the footnotes actually say. This is from a Book of Mormon I own printed in 1908 which means it is an 1879 edition done by Orson Pratt. For example, On page 155 footnote g reads, “The land Nephi is supposed to have been near Ecuador, South America” and footnote h reads, “The land Zarahemla is supposed to have been north of the head waters of the Magdelena, its northern boundary being a few days’ journey south of the isthmus.”

I am not sure they are salacious, but they are hemispheric.

SIEQ and Pelagius: Thanks for that information. Very interesting, especially the actual footnotes.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I'm not meaning to imply they're salacious--just that the material that accompanies the BoM record, like intros, chapter descriptions, and footnotes, changes with some frequency.

I was just joking around about the salacious thing. When I actually show my 1908 Book of Mormon to people they are usually very surprised. They usually think it is kind of funny and amusing. I have also never met another person (in the real world) that was aware of their existence. It is a pretty obscure historical footnote (couldn't resist) at this point.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Who cares? As many times as YOU personally referred to the lack of archeological and DNA evidence tying anything Middle Eastern to the America, I thought this might be interesting. If you don't care, then maybe you'd better shut up in the future about someone providing you a "mustard seed".

I've never talked about DNA in relation to the Book of Mormon. I've never paid much attention to those studies. You know, to be fair, if they did find semitic DNA it wouldn't affect my conclusions anyway.