Book of Mormon Intro - "Principal Ancestors" wording changed

[_charity]

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?

Are you asking if I think DNA is useless in general or just in this instance?

I learned in my psych studies about reliability and validity. A test must be reliable. It must measure the same every time. Take a measuring tape and measure how tall a person it over and over and the results should be the same each time. If sometimes the measurement said 5' 9" and sometimes 6' the tape would not be reliable. If the tape measure 5'10 1/4" repeatedly, then it is reliable.

But there is also validity. It doesn't do any good for a test to be reliable if you think you are testing for something the test doesn't do. For instance, I could take those very reliable tape measurements and say that I had determined since the measurement was reliable that I had measured the person's IQ at 110. This means the measuring tape used for IQ is not valid.

DNA does great things. I love all the CSI shows. But you can't use DNA to determine every single person on any one genetic tree.

Do you think it strange that there have been no discoveris of haplogroup I among Native Americans? We know that Scandanvian explorers were in the Americas frequently, and at least once for an extended period of time. Since it the nature of men to spread their DNA wherever they go, why do we not see any haplogroup I?

Oh, yes, looking through some of the major publications on DNA and the American Indian, I found a very surprising statistics. The study by Karafet et al used a sample of 19 individuals to make their determination. Wow. 19 Indians.

So, no, I don't see DNA as a valid test of global migrations, small immigrant populations, and certainly not as having anything pertinent to say about the Book of Mormon.

[_charity]

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?

The intro did not come directly from the Lord's mouthpiece. That is the president of the church. Bruce R. McConkie was not ever the president of the Church.

I wish you would get these things right, Scratch.

The claim that isn't there, is that every single American Indian had no other progenitor's except Lehites. Your misinterpreation has been duly noted on this thread. You don't need to bring in other issues.

[_charity]

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.

Could you please describe what happened that makes you think the general Church membership (which is quite a bit larger than your ward) was embarrassed? What was said, done, and by how many people?

[_huckelberry]

Is the intro doctrine?

What an odd diversion. It is a summary picture of what is in the Book of Mormon. What is in the book and what is not is where the difficulty lies. The intro or summary is just a quick place to look for the difficulty.

I have read descriptions on the net of Nephi and company arriving at an inhabited land full of people who helped them live and learn how to survive in a new land. The Nehites learned their language dress technology. They used native art and buildings. In fact Nephites became indistiguishable from everybody else to an outside view.

This view has the excellent advantage of recognizing new world realities.

It has the disadvantage of having no presence in the story we have in the Book of Mormon.

Yes I remember an episode where some refugee from outside stumbed into town. Somewhere out there was a remenant of a previous population.

Somebody observed that the population grew too fast for there not to be others.

I would find that a better indicator of outsiders if the people in question actually got mentioned. Otherwise it appears to be just unrealistic storytelling.

I think Beastie has produced extended discussion about this problem, and done it well. The entire course of the story of the Book of Mormon proceeds by form on the assumption that there were no outsiders. If there were they would have had serious impact on the course and shape of the story.

If that sounds too general ask how these immagrants managed to establish political independence from the power groups already in controll of the land.

Myself I have only said that the sense of historical realism in the Book of Mormon suffers seriously from the lack of Indians.

[_beastie]

Charity -

Do you believe you can see buried treasures by looking in a stone in a hat?

[_charity]

[quote="huckelberry"]

Somebody observed that the population grew too fast for there not to be others.

I would find that a better indicator of outsiders if the people in question actually got mentioned. Otherwise it appears to be just unrealistic storytelling.

So maybe you would. That doesn't mean that the Book of Mormon has to conform to what you would want. You have overlooked two things.

First, the authors of the Book of Mormon state from outset that this is a restricted account. It isn't meant to be a history. it is a religious testament, what little history there is woven around the religious doctrine is restricted to the "royal" line. A kinship record.


Second, the accounts of "others" are there to the serious reader. The skimmer won't pick them up. Sort of like looking at the drawing with the "hidden" figures. They just don't get it, while the ones who are in tune can see the little drawing of the comb, the pen, the bunny, etc. plainly visible.

I think Beastie has produced extended discussion about this problem, and done it well. The entire course of the story of the Book of Mormon proceeds by form on the assumption that there were no outsiders. If there were they would have had serious impact on the course and shape of the story.

No, it doesn't. And who says they don't have a serious impact? At one time the numerical superiority in a battle occurs only because of the outsiders who can bolster the Lamanite side.

If that sounds too general ask how these immagrants managed to establish political independence from the power groups already in controll of the land.

Um. . . the way others did? Went someplace that wasn't already thickly inhabited, maybe. Came in and took over the indigenous population because of superiority of technology. It has happened before. Look at OLd World history. The Bible, even.



Myself I have only said that the sense of historical realism in the Book of Mormon suffers seriously from the lack of Indians.[

Tee hee. That is really funny. Makes it sound like a wild west story.

/quote]

[_Yoda]

Accept fact or continue looking like a d****.

Now this is uncalled for even in the Terrestial Kingdom don't you think Mercury?

(Moderator Note) Repeated inflammatory comments which do not add to the discussion belong in the Telestial Forum. The Telestial Forum is specifically designed for flaming.
I have edited the name-calling in question.

Merc...this is a freindly reminder of what you already know. Thanks! :) Liz

[_charity]

How many friendly reminders does merc get? This is the not the first time he/she has called me the same name, and gotten the same friendly reminder.

[_harmony]

How many friendly reminders does merc get? This is the not the first time he/she has called me the same name, and gotten the same friendly reminder.

We don't ban people here, charity. It's one of the more charming aspects of this board. Comments may be moved to the appropriate forum and a mild reminder may be in order, but, unlike other boards, we don't ban anyone, we don't delete comments, and we don't put anyone on a queue. We police ourselves; we don't need anyone to tell us what to say or how to say it. And danged if that isn't one of the hardest things for the MADdites among us to get used to.

[_Trevor]

Could you please describe what happened that makes you think the general Church membership (which is quite a bit larger than your ward) was embarrassed? What was said, done, and by how many people?

First of all, charity, I never said anything about the general membership of the church being embarrassed by these things. I said that when I was a kid, I was embarrassed by them. And, I said I kind of regretted that since I see almost nothing of it today. I have attended the LDS Church in many regions of the US of A, and I can say without reservation that I have seen much less talk of these things than I did as a youngster.

I am fairly certain that this phenomenon is not restricted to the many wards I have attended in the past 20 years. My guess is that it probably does represent some kind of trend. Have I done a study? No. I have better things to do with my time. Your nitpicking over my exchange with Runtu is pretty humorous, though.