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

[_the road to hana]

[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.

These are all beatie's quotes. You'll need to click on the "edit" button and correct that. None of the above quotes are mine.

[_marg]

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.

Your comment does not address my point. I was addressing your comment that new theories start out as disputed. And the point I'm making in response is that your argument is not applicable to you or the theory you hold to, because it is not a NEW THEORY it is an OLD THEORY formulated as a possibility when there was not the archeological, linguistic, genetic information currently available. All the information available points to migration from Asia 10,00 or so years ago. There is no evidence that any ancestry for Am. Indians came from the Middle East.

What the Church taught is that Lamanites were principal ancestors. That butts up against science so okay we know why they are changing it. But this is why I've asked you multiple times what evidence is there for your/the LDS Church's claim. It amounts to no better than wishful thinking. Even if you thought only 1 person migrated from the Middle East. It is irrelevant what number you use...THERE IS NO EVIDENCE.

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.

You say "probably most of the slots on the pedigree chart of Am. Ind." are Asian? Your intense intellectual dishonesty is showing. It is not a matter of "probable" Charity, it is a matter of that's what the evidence indicates to the point that it's virtual fact. You downplay evidence when it doesn't suit your purpose and you use absence of evidence ..as evidence, disingenuously when it does suit your purpose. But as you say evidence is irrelevant to your reasoning on this matter because your beliefs on this are completely religiously "faith" based.

Once you started telling me I was being influenced by "satan's minions" I realized I was conversing with a nut-case. I just hope you aren't dangerous.

[_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?

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?

If it was so hidden in the minutes that a person would have to dig through reams of old paper to find it, you could hardly say it was taught, now, could you?

[_charity]

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?!

Show me where that was taught. Don't just repeat old candards. Thanks.

[_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?

If it was so hidden in the minutes that a person would have to dig through reams of old paper to find it, you could hardly say it was taught, now, could you?

What on earth does paper have to do with minutes?

[_BishopRic]

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?!

Show me where that was taught. Don't just repeat old candards. Thanks.

I'm just repeating what I, and I'm sure most LDS who grew up here in Zion, was taught in SS class, seminary, etc.. Just because it isn't in the canonized scripture doesn't mean it wasn't taught. This isn't the MAD board where you rely on CFRs to make your (weak) case that it was never taught. Take a class from Dan Jones...he'll teach you how to take a survey if you want to know what was taught. But I suspect you really don't want to know....

[_marg]

This isn't the MAD board where you rely on CFRs ...

What is CFR?

[_charity]

Your comment does not address my point. I was addressing your comment that new theories start out as disputed. And the point I'm making in response is that your argument is not applicable to you or the theory you hold to, because it is not a NEW THEORY it is an OLD THEORY formulated as a possibility when there was not the archeological, linguistic, genetic information currently available. All the information available points to migration from Asia 10,00 or so years ago. There is no evidence that any ancestry for Am. Indians came from the Middle East.

You missed a page, I guess. The old theory-new theory came about over diffusionism. You could go back and read that. I know it is frustrating to have to read through pages and pages of posts, but that really is the only way you are going to know what the discussion is. That is why I often skip a thread if it has too many posts. I get tired reading a long string, and it isn't really fair to jump in when you don't know the argument.

What the Church taught is that Lamanites were principal ancestors. That butts up against science so okay we know why they are changing it. But this is why I've asked you multiple times what evidence is there for your/the LDS Church's claim. It amounts to no better than wishful thinking. Even if you thought only 1 person migrated from the Middle East. It is irrelevant what number you use...THERE IS NO EVIDENCE.

And you have totally misread and misunderstood the word "principal." It means most important, not % of DNA in the cells.

You say "probably most of the slots on the pedigree chart of Am. Ind." are Asian? Your intense intellectual dishonesty is showing. It is not a matter of "probable" Charity, it is a matter of that's what the evidence indicates to the point that it's virtual fact. You downplay evidence when it doesn't suit your purpose and you use absence of evidence ..as evidence, disingenuously when it does suit your purpose. But as you say evidence is irrelevant to your reasoning on this matter because your beliefs on this are completely religiously "faith" based.

Actually, it is the only intellectually honest thing to say. I know a number of American Indians, in fact I am 1/8 myself, who have a lot of European DNA. Only a scientific ignoramous would say that 100% of every American Indian DNA is Asian. Remember, we are testing Indians today, not in 600 B.C.

Once you started telling me I was being influenced by "satan's minions" I realized I was conversing with a nut-case. I just hope you aren't dangerous.

I am only a nut job if I am wrong. Time will tell.

[_beastie]

Charity,

I'm slowly realizing you don't really adhere to the LGT.

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.

The difficulty here arises with the use of the phrase "two opposing nations". Under the LGT, there was no such thing. There was mainly one Nephite polity, that exercised very limited influence over other friendly polities. These other polities weren't technically even "nephite" except using to denote a ally rather than an enemy.

The Lamanites weren't a nation, either. The Lamanites were really just other polities that opposed the one Nephite polity. There was no unity in either group. There was no demise of "one of these nations". At most, there was the elimination of one particular familial line that held power (Nephi's actual descendants).

If you believe, as the above statement outlines, that the familial split actually evolved into "two opposing nations" instead of isolated polities as I have outlined above, you are in trouble.

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.

I suppose you could parse this one to agree with LGT, if you carefully define "ancient America" and "people".

[ 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.

What entire nation was exterminated? Once again, under LGT, you can't really use this term, an "entire nation" being "exterminated". [/quote]

[_BishopRic]

This isn't the MAD board where you rely on CFRs ...

What is CFR?

"call for reference." It is a rule and tactic the MAD board uses whenever a person claims that something was taught in the church. It is a means, in my opinion, to discredit the significant changes that have occured in church teachings by minimizing the memories of us old folks that actually experienced many teachings that are now claimed to have never been "official teachings."