harmony wrote: And good for them! It's just too bad they did it on the sly, and not universally.
Another of the same old anti-arguments. "It's all hidden and sly and deceitful."
Seems like pubishing something is pretty much out in the open. Or maybe you were expecting that the home teachers and visiting teachers make it a part of their lesson for next month. How about a full page ad in the New York Times? Or maybe by a 30 minute infomercial?
You guys are a hoot!
We didn't publish it, Charity. Doubleday did. There should have been a press release, and a fanfare from Deseret Book at the very minimum. And the church should change it in every Book of Mormon published from now on.
Mister Scratch wrote: The trouble with this is that the Book of Mormon is supposed to be canonical, word-of-God scripture, and as such it should not need these kinds of revisions and clarifications. I suspect that you know that, hence your apparent need to engage in these kinds of sophistries.
No; what would be nice is an admission from the Brethren that many of these silly claims about the "Lamanites" were false.
Jospeh Smith did not translate the Introduction from the plates.
I think you read into the "claims" what isn't there, and there is no need for them to take responsbility for your erroneous interpretations.
charity wrote:I don't know why they did it. But it does seem interesting to me that now that it was changed, suddenly the critic argument has changed to "we always understood that 'principal' meant most important, and didn't have anytjhing to do with percentage of DNA in the cells." Talk about shifting sands!
But BRM, the likely author of the Introduction, is very clear (from my quote above) that the dominantblood lineage of American Indians is Hebrew, which has everything to do with "DNA in the cells." But science has shown this to be false; hence, the need to deal with that troublesome Introduction.
Hello, Rollo. Long time no see. You haven't changed a bit. Still making strawman arguments.
Where do we read in the Book of Mormon Intro that "dominant blood" means DNA? I did a word search and you know what? DNA never appears in the Book of Mormon. "Dominant" means just what "principal" means in the same context. Most important.
You are a smart person, Rollo. Please don't pretend ignorance for the sake of making a point.
Charity, based on several data points now, I'm convinced that you don't know what a strawman argument is. That, and a good one either.
Rollo said the argument is that the American Indians are Hebrews and that is DNA in the cells. The argument really is that one or more the ancestral pedigree slots is taken up by Lehi.
So yes, saying that the Book of Mormon calls the American Indians Hebrews with Hebrew DNA, and then proving that American Indians are not Hebrew is setting up a strawman and shooting it down.
Mister Scratch wrote: The trouble with this is that the Book of Mormon is supposed to be canonical, word-of-God scripture, and as such it should not need these kinds of revisions and clarifications. I suspect that you know that, hence your apparent need to engage in these kinds of sophistries.
No; what would be nice is an admission from the Brethren that many of these silly claims about the "Lamanites" were false.
Jospeh Smith did not translate the Introduction from the plates.
The jury is still out on whether or not Joseph translated anything from the plates. Mostly, it looks like he looked into a hat.
I think you read into the "claims" what isn't there, and there is no need for them to take responsbility for your erroneous interpretations.
BRM possessed the same keys to prophecy and revelation as Joseph did. Why is one to be believed above all else and the other to be kicked to the curb when he becomes a liability?
charity wrote:Rollo said the argument is that the American Indians are Hebrews and that is DNA in the cells. The argument really is that one or more the ancestral pedigree slots is taken up by Lehi.
So yes, saying that the Book of Mormon calls the American Indians Hebrews with Hebrew DNA, and then proving that American Indians are not Hebrew is setting up a strawman and shooting it down.
I know this point has probably been raised before, but, given the fact that BRM came to his task of writing an Intro to the Book of Mormon with a basic understanding of genealogy, I have a difficult time accepting that he wrote principal ancestors with the idea in mind that he meant one slot reserved for Lehi. Even if you remove the DNA standard, it looks like you are reinterpreting BRM to mean what works for you now, which pretty much comes up now because of the DNA argument. Since you don't really think that much of the DNA argument anyway, why even bother reinterpreting his words? Why not simply argue that the Native Americans are Lamanites? I mean, DNA has no light to shed on the issue, from your perspective, right? No?
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
Trevor wrote:Sadly, I must confess that I was one of those people who was embarrassed by Three-Nephite tales and Lost-Ten-Tribes speculations. Now that they are gone, church has become an unadulterated snooze fest.
I think you just hit the nail on the head. The Three Nephites and visions and speaking in tongues are embarrassing. To modern sensibilities, they are the marks of an uneducated and superstitious people. And no Latter-day Saint wants to be associated with that.
Do all critics of the Church think they can speak for the membership?
I don't know of any LDS who are ashamed of The Three Nephits, visions, speaking in tongues, or any other phenomena. Anyone who is embarrassed ought to read the scriptures for what happens when people are ashamed of the Gospel.
harmony wrote: And good for them! It's just too bad they did it on the sly, and not universally.
Another of the same old anti-arguments. "It's all hidden and sly and deceitful."
Seems like pubishing something is pretty much out in the open. Or maybe you were expecting that the home teachers and visiting teachers make it a part of their lesson for next month. How about a full page ad in the New York Times? Or maybe by a 30 minute infomercial?
You guys are a hoot!
We didn't publish it, Charity. Doubleday did. There should have been a press release, and a fanfare from Deseret Book at the very minimum. And the church should change it in every Book of Mormon published from now on.
Oh, shucks and we just missed Conference but it was so full of good heart warming faith promoting rumors and stuff that I am positive that there wasn't a spare minute in which this could have been addressed.
I think it would be morally right to lie about your religion to edit the article favorably. bcspace
Mister Scratch wrote: The trouble with this is that the Book of Mormon is supposed to be canonical, word-of-God scripture, and as such it should not need these kinds of revisions and clarifications. I suspect that you know that, hence your apparent need to engage in these kinds of sophistries.
No; what would be nice is an admission from the Brethren that many of these silly claims about the "Lamanites" were false.
Jospeh Smith did not translate the Introduction from the plates.
Let me ask you again, Charity: Why the need for this "clarification"? This is coming direct from the Lord's mouthpiece(s), is it not? Why, moreover, other such "emendations" to the Book of Mormon, such as the removal of "white and delightsome" during the 1980s? This re-write of the intro is really little more than a redux of what has happened many, many times before.
I think you read into the "claims" what isn't there,
Such as what?
and there is no need for them to take responsbility for your erroneous interpretations.
What "erroneous interpretations"? Did I somehow "misinterpret" SWK's comments that Native American LDS were growing "whiter" right before his eyes?
Do all critics of the Church think they can speak for the membership?
I don't know of any LDS who are ashamed of The Three Nephits, visions, speaking in tongues, or any other phenomena. Anyone who is embarrassed ought to read the scriptures for what happens when people are ashamed of the Gospel.
Nor should they be embarrassed to admit that they believe people can see buried treasures by looking at a stone in a hat.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
charity wrote:Do all critics of the Church think they can speak for the membership?
I don't know of any LDS who are ashamed of The Three Nephits, visions, speaking in tongues, or any other phenomena. Anyone who is embarrassed ought to read the scriptures for what happens when people are ashamed of the Gospel.
Whatever, charity, I was only attending church every Sunday about a year ago. I am sure I can have no idea what I was experiencing then.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”