Current LDS Apologetic position on Native Americans pre-Lehi

[_Drifting]

Also, you shouldn't confuse the naïveté of youth with being the whole truth of a subject.

Too many leave the Church in their late teens and early 20's (a smaller number later), when they never intellectually matured into really knowing the Church.

Coincidentally, the "late teens and early 20's," when people have not "intellectually matured into really knowing the Church," is precisely when the Church sends young men and women out on full-time missions to try and convert people.

Perhaps investigators "shouldn't confuse the naïveté of youth with being the whole truth of a subject."

And pressures them into marrying and producing children. Which it does because the leaders know that single 18 to 30 year olds are leaving the Church in droves - because they've matured intellectually and have gotten to really know the Church.

[_ldsfaqs]

Bump for ldsfaqs.

Both I and DrW have provided you with official Church quotes showing that it is taught that the land was uninhibited. That's opposite to what you believe. I think that means you are back to being apostate...

The "immediate" SPOT might have been uninhabited, but that's a far cry from the ENTIRE Continent being uninhabited. Further, the Bible says the SAME EXACT THING a couple of times, yet the place wasn't inhabited, and even the Bible says it.

There is a "difference" between a place being set aside for a PEOPLE, and there not being a "single" person in the area, let alone HALF THE EARTH!!! And not only that we KNOW there were decedents of Jaredites around, let alone all the other peoples the Book of Mormon directly mentions and implies which POPPED OUT OF KNOW-WHERE!!!

Idiots!

[_Drifting]

Bump for ldsfaqs.

Both I and DrW have provided you with official Church quotes showing that it is taught that the land was uninhibited. That's opposite to what you believe. I think that means you are back to being apostate...

The "immediate" SPOT might have been uninhabited, but that's a far cry from the ENTIRE Continent being uninhabited. Further, the Bible says the SAME EXACT THING a couple of times, yet the place wasn't inhabited, and even the Bible says it.

There is a "difference" between a place being set aside for a PEOPLE, and there not being a "single" person in the area, let alone HALF THE EARTH!!! And not only that we KNOW there were decedents of Jaredites around, let alone all the other peoples the Book of Mormon directly mentions and implies which POPPED OUT OF KNOW-WHERE!!!

Idiots!

Well, which defence are you going with?

"land" = small area of land of indeterminate uninhabited acreage.

Or

"uninhabited" = a small amount of people lived there.

[_Drifting]

Bump for ldsfaqs.

Both I and DrW have provided you with official Church quotes showing that it is taught that the land was uninhabited. That's opposite to what you believe. I think that means you are back to being apostate...

ldsfaqs stated...

The "immediate" SPOT might have been uninhabited, but that's a far cry from the ENTIRE Continent being uninhabited. Further, the Bible says the SAME EXACT THING a couple of times, yet the place wasn't inhabited, and even the Bible says it.

There is a "difference" between a place being set aside for a PEOPLE, and there not being a "single" person in the area, let alone HALF THE EARTH!!! And not only that we KNOW there were decedents of Jaredites around, let alone all the other peoples the Book of Mormon directly mentions and implies which POPPED OUT OF KNOW-WHERE!!!

Idiots!

i asked...

Well, which defence are you going with?

"land" = small area of land of indeterminate uninhabited acreage.

Or

"uninhabited" = a small amount of people lived there.

Well, ldsfaqs?

(It will help your cause a tad if you can point to something official from the Church that shows agreement with your interpretation - obviously that would then throw Jeffrey R Holland under the bus).

[_DarkHelmet]

The book doesn't say that.... That is your "adding" to the word and falsely interpreting and not actually knowing the Book of Mormon.

First, the same terminology is used in the Bible, yet there were PLENTY of people around.

Free advice. Don't use the Bible as proof of anything when debating Mormonism. Most people here aren't evangelical anti-Mormons. There are a few here, but most of us put as much stock in the Bible as we do in the Book of Mormon.

[_DrW]

I strongly agree with the others on this thread who suggest that ldsfaqs should learn his/her religion before he/she attempts to defend it.

ldsfaqs has a tenuous grip on the facts and sometimes, it seems, on reality. While often entertaining, this situation does not make for good apologetics. As Drifting suggested, perhaps another apologist should try to help ldsfaqs clarify a few things.

Sorry, you are describing YOURSELF....

LDS know our religion, you however do not.

And before you try to claim otherwise, I've been anti-Mormon anti-religion, having left the Church, so I actually know what I'm talking about, and how you guys are flawed in your judgments.

Rather than engaging in unwarranted ad hominem attacks, why not try to try to refute, or at least understand, the quotation from Elder Holland (an Apostle of the Lord) that I provided? This published quotation shows you to be just plain wrong in your claims about Church doctrine regarding New World populations prior to the Lehites and Jaredites.

Disagreeing with me is one thing, but claiming that and Apostle of the Lord is in error is something else altogether.