Thanksgiving, Indians, and the recent change to the Book of Mormon

[_the road to hana]

So the argument is actually, God can beat up Satan.

I'm sure your opponents would agree with you. Now, you've moved from a "my dad can beat up your dad" argument to "your dad isn't really a dad."

Let's break down your assertion:

Are you suggesting that if the Book of Mormon were not what it claimed, God could not tell you?

Are you further suggesting that if a book were not what it claimed, but claimed to be of God, that Satan could not disguise it as being of God for his own purposes?

[_beastie]

Maybe this is why I have a little trouble dealing with you arguments as logical. "Invisible" people? No one ever said they left no trace. Just that is is difficult to find such a small one. And who are you to say that the influence which was left would have to have "Hebrew" stamped on it?

If thirty people left a trace so small that it can’t be detected, in terms of archaeology and anthropology, they are invisible.

Now tell me one way that the history of Mesoamerica would be fundamentally different had the Lehites never arrived.

Oh, and you’re contradicting yourself again. You can’t help yourself. First you assert that, unlike Brant and Clark, you do think one could identify the Lehites, and in the next breath, you ask “would the influence have Hebrew stamped on it?”

It is extremely confusing to talk to someone who shift positions practically within the same sentence.

This next part is my favorite:

1. I am merely calling attention to flaws in your argument.

You’re calling attention to flaws in my argument by telling me I need “dumbed down posts”, “words of one syllables”, that I’m not rational, am dishonest, and am one of Satan’s minions????

LOL!!! ROFL!!!!

You are incapable of recognizing your own behavior for what it is.

2. I didn't see any Gospel Doctrine manuals or CES materials. If you are talking about an article by a scholar which appears in a Church magazine, it isn't "teachings from the Church." You can try to shift over from that to LDS teachings meaning anything that somebody who is LDS says, but that doesn't meet the definition we had set up before. Nice try, though.

Oh, for heaven’s sake. We’re not talking about doctrine here, we’re talking about what has been taught within the church. Of course, if I come back with material from CES then the bar will be raised yet again.

[_charity]

You don't believe in a new theory. You believe in an old theory. And you don't believe in it because you've reasoned your way to it, you believe based on your conformance to the dictates of your Church. It is a passe theory that "Am. Indians might be/or are of Middle Eastern origin. It existed when there wasn't enough information to reach reliable theories regarding where Am Indians migrated from before reaching America.

marg, I wish you could understand what the position of the Church is, and what the current state of scientific theory is on the subject. I have told you before. Please listen. I will put it in red to emphasis it.

The Church has never taught that every single ancestor of the American Indian is of Israelite origin.

Now the only people holding to this idea regarding Am Indians are individuals such as yourself who either are ignorant of the science behind it, or are unable adjust their understanding of the science because they are locked into a faith based religious reasoning system which relies upon religious authority to do the thinking for them.

Again, your misunderstanding seems boundless. Here again, in red, because I have told you before and you didn't get it then, is my position.

Probably most of the slots on the pedigree chart of American Indians are filled with ancestors who came across the land bridge. Asian DNA. Got it? I am sure that a few of those pedigree slots (out of the millions that are there) came from Lamanites. Got that?

Your rabid anti-religion bias is showing, and when it isn't based on reality (such as the way you misunderstand and misrepresent what I believe) shoots your whole argument down in flames.

[_the road to hana]

The Church has never taught that every single ancestor of the American Indian is of Israelite origin..

Can you prove that?

[_beastie]

by the way, Charity, I don't think you can hide from the fact that this citation is, indeed, a "church teaching". It's on the church's website listed as background information.

From “background information” on the church’s website, regarding the Book of Mormon:

http://www.LDS.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=
64da8bd9eeb9f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=3e0511154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD

Quote:
Latter-day Saints also consider the Book of Mormon to be a record of great ancient-American civilizations.

According to the record, one of these civilizations stemmed from a man named Lehi who left Jerusalem with his family around 600 B.C. They traveled to the sea, built a boat and continued over sea to the Americas.

Following the party’s arrival in the New World, growing disharmony caused family groups to fragment into clans that evolved eventually into two opposing nations. Conflicts ensued during the recorded 1,000 years, leading to the eventual demise of one of these nations.

Within the context of this story is a series of prophecies and testimonies about Jesus Christ as the Savior of the world, including, strikingly, a visit by the risen, resurrected Jesus to the people in the New World.

The Book of Mormon records that during Christ's ministry to the people of ancient America, He established His church, as in the Old World.

According to the record, the people lived in unity and prosperity for nearly 200 years following Christ's visit.

Then, over time, many people began to abandon Christ's teachings. Wickedness prevailed among them, and a war of extermination resulted in the destruction of an entire nation.

[_charity]

So the argument is actually, God can beat up Satan.

I'm sure your opponents would agree with you. Now, you've moved from a "my dad can beat up your dad" argument to "your dad isn't really a dad."

Let's break down your assertion:

Are you suggesting that if the Book of Mormon were not what it claimed, God could not tell you?

I have said before, just so no one will claim I am changing my mind, that the Holy Ghost affirms. If something is not correct, He does not say "this isn't correct." You simply get no response.

Are you further suggesting that if a book were not what it claimed, but claimed to be of God, that Satan could not disguise it as being of God for his own purposes?

This is an intriguing thought. That Satan would testify to the Book of Mormon being of God when it wasn't, for some nefarious purpose of his own.

But I doubt that argument would fly because of this: The Book of Mormon is written to the end of convincing the Jew and the Gentile that Jesus is the Christ. I don' think Satan would like that.

[_charity]

The Church has never taught that every single ancestor of the American Indian is of Israelite origin..

Can you prove that?

I've been studying Church doctrine, in formal classes at BYU, institute, KYR, etc. for 46 years and I have never heard that taught.

Can you show me one place where it has been?

[Guest]

[by the way, Charity, I don't think you can hide from the fact that this citation is, indeed, a "church teaching". It's on the church's website listed as background information.

From “background information” on the church’s website, regarding the Book of Mormon:

http://www.LDS.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=
64da8bd9eeb9f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=3e0511154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD

Your link doesn't work. But I will take your word for it that you are correctly quoting in the following.

[ Quote:
Latter-day Saints also consider the Book of Mormon to be a record of great ancient-American civilizations.

Right.

[According to the record, one of these civilizations stemmed from a man named Lehi who left Jerusalem with his family around 600 B.C. They traveled to the sea, built a boat and continued over sea to the Americas.

Following the party’s arrival in the New World, growing disharmony caused family groups to fragment into clans that evolved eventually into two opposing nations. Conflicts ensued during the recorded 1,000 years, leading to the eventual demise of one of these nations.

Right.

[Within the context of this story is a series of prophecies and testimonies about Jesus Christ as the Savior of the world, including, strikingly, a visit by the risen, resurrected Jesus to the people in the New World.

The Book of Mormon records that during Christ's ministry to the people of ancient America, He established His church, as in the Old World. According to the record, the people lived in unity and prosperity for nearly 200 years following Christ's visit.

Right.

[Then, over time, many people began to abandon Christ's teachings. Wickedness prevailed among them, and a war of extermination resulted in the destruction of an entire nation.

Yep. All this is in the Book of Mormon. So show me where it says anything about this being a history of the whole North and South American continents. Or that all American Indians are only descended from Lehi. I must have missed it.

[_the road to hana]

The Church has never taught that every single ancestor of the American Indian is of Israelite origin..

Can you prove that?

I've been studying Church doctrine, in formal classes at BYU, institute, KYR, etc. for 46 years and I have never heard that taught.

Can you show me one place where it has been?

Wouldn't you have to, like, investigate every minute in the history of the LDS Church in all settings to completely exhaust whether or not it had? Kind of like digging up every square foot of Mesoamerica?

[_BishopRic]

The Church has never taught that every single ancestor of the American Indian is of Israelite origin..

Can you prove that?

I've been studying Church doctrine, in formal classes at BYU, institute, KYR, etc. for 46 years and I have never heard that taught.

Can you show me one place where it has been?

I always love the "we never taught that" claim. Then there's the "if somebody taught it, it was only their opinion." And lastly, "even if the prophet taught it from the pulpit in GC, if the doctrine changed later by revelation, the earlier teaching was only an opinion.

Good heavens, do you believe in a God that is that flakey?!