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

[_beastie]

by the way, Charity, since you are insulting me regularly now, am I to assume that you have lost the argument and know it, and your insults are just a reflection of your frustration over having lost the argument?

[_charity]

How can you comment on the importance of changing the wording when you acknowledge you don't know why they did it.

Because I can think. I can read. I can understand what I read. If there is nothing big and significant, then there is no big and significant reason to have done it. Like I said before. A shrugable event.

I can tell you why they did it, Charity. It is because both claims whether it is 1) Lamanites(read Middle eastern ancestry) are principal ancestors of present day American Indians or 2 Lamanites (read Middle Eastern ancestry) are some of the ancestors of present day American Indians have no basis of evidence to support the claims. The first runs into direct conflict with scientific evidence, as I've been explaining to you in previous posts. The principal ancestors is now known be Asian before any American Indians came to the American continent.

Again, marg, as you seem to skip over, "principal" never meant majority of slots on the pedigree chart. So you trying to "explain" your misinterpretation doesn't work. I understand what you are saying. I just don't agree with it. So your #1 is refuted.

Now, for your assertion #2. That a change was necessary because of scientific evidence. If you read carefully, the change reaffirms the Church's position. The introduction STILL says that Lehi appears on the family tree of Native American Indians. No change.

And the church is fully aware it is running up against new science in its claim. So what it is doing is weasling out of its old position on this, and downgrading its claim to speak only for a minute fraction of Am. Indians by saying Lamanites are only some of the ancestors of American Indians.

Again, marg, your reading is incorrect. The introduction does not "downgrade its claim to speak for only a minute fraction of Am Indians." Please note the change says that "among" the ancestors of the American Indians are Lamznite ancestors. Not a few of the American Indians. You read your little downgrading thing into the introduction when it wasn't there.

Even though there is no evidence at all for this, the church argues that lack of evidence is irrelevant because maybe, just maybe...all the evidence was diluted out of existence. You see, Charity it can create apologies for lack of evidence on a small insignificant ancestry claim for Am. Indians but it can not account for lack of evidence on a claim representative of the majority of Am. Indians. Statistically it doesn't wash/make sense.

You should read the great guru of genetics, according to the anti-Mormons, plant geneticist, Simon Southerton. He says that if a small group of immigrants came to the New World, and mixed in with the existing population, there would likely be no genetic imprint left.

Let me try to make it clear for you. The only traceable DNA over long periods of time is the Y chromosome, but this only follows the direct male line, father to son to son to son. . . . . Females don't have this chromosome to begin with so, you can't trace female ancestry on the Y chromosome. Then there is mtDNA, which is passed to both males and females from their mothers. But this ancestral line is only on the right hand side of the pedigree chart. Your mother to her mother to her mother. Everyone else in the pedigree chart except for one individual on the left (if you are male) and one individual on the right is left out. If you are a male, does this mean you did not also have grandfather who was your mother's father? If you are male or female, does this mean that your don't have a grandmother who is your father's mother?

That is why the Church changed the wording, in essence to cover its ass with regards to its lies. And in my world I consider lies perpetrated on others for personal gain at the expense of others "unethical". Now I guess the Church can justify its actions as being ethical, because they wouldn't want people it has lied to all these years, who have invested money, time, emotions, social involvement to be devastated if they were to clue in that all their investment has been put into a scam. That the Church was founded upon lies.

marg: You have believed lies told by individuals in whom there is no truth. They are fighting against God and you have bought into it.You ought to at least think about how wrong you have been as evidenced in the post I am responding to. And then look to see where else you have been led astray by Satan's minions.

[_charity]

The hemispheric model indicates that the descendants of Lehi spread throughout the entire continent, more or less. In other words, the events of the Book of Mormon took place all over North and South America. This precludes the idea of a limited population contained within a very small geographical area, such as Mesoamerica, who were immediately subsumed within a larger population. This hemispheric models is predicated upon the idea of Lehi's descendants being the primary inhabitants of these continents, and, in fact, usually includes the idea that they were the sole inhabitants as well.

And the hemsipheric model never was doctrine. Nor is the Limited model. Not doctrine. Not doctrine. Not doctrine. Three times is supposed to get through. And since it wasn't doctrine, it doesn't matter if a lot of people thought it was and they were mistaken. The judgement is not going to include a geography or antrholpology test.

Joseph Smith and the vast majority of LDS prophets did NOT believe in the "limited geography theory". You are insisting that the introduction always reflected an intent coherent with the LGT, and that is just plain nonsense. Given how you believe prophets and leaders are not infallible, I have no idea why you can't admit they are changing a teaching about the Book of Mormon.

Because it was NOT a teaching of the Book of Mormon. And when will you read the introduction and see that there is no change? Among still says that all the Indians have Lehi on their pedigree chart. I said I don't know why they made the change, but if I were to speculate, I would say it was because of the stubborn people who refuse to read dictionary definitions and continued to perseverate that "principal" meant "all." Myself, I would just let people be ignorant if they chose to be so, and not conform my actions to that. But then I am not as nice as the Brethren.

For heaven's sake, back on FAIR, numerous high profile apologists conceded that the introduction was misleading and needed to be changed. Get on board with your leaders (and by leaders, I mean the high profile apologists, of course), for heaven's sake, and quit embarrassing yourself with talk of using "words with shorter syllables".

Thanks beastie. Like I said, I can live with the change but I wouldn't have made it just on the off chance that some idiot can't read a dictionary. Or can't understand a definition when they read it.

Oh, and that is an insult if you are one of the idiots who can't read a dictionary. But if you aren't, then you don't need to take that remark personally. And I really should whip myself because I made a typo. Words of one syllable.

[_marg]

Please note the change says that "among" the ancestors of the American Indians are Lamznite ancestors.

And I'm going to ask you again..what evidence is there that around 600 B.C. a group came from the Middle East and were ancestors of current American Indians? At this point I don't care whether or not they were important. All I want to know is what evidence do you use to conclude there were any Middle Eastern ancestry which stems from 600 B.C. arrival.

[_beastie]

And the hemsipheric model never was doctrine. Nor is the Limited model. Not doctrine. Not doctrine. Not doctrine. Three times is supposed to get through. And since it wasn't doctrine, it doesn't matter if a lot of people thought it was and they were mistaken. The judgement is not going to include a geography or antrholpology test.

Who said anything about doctrine? I specifically said:

Joseph Smith and the vast majority of LDS prophets did NOT believe in the "limited geography theory". You are insisting that the introduction always reflected an intent coherent with the LGT, and that is just plain nonsense. Given how you believe prophets and leaders are not infallible, I have no idea why you can't admit they are changing a teaching about the Book of Mormon.

I don't care whether or not it was a "doctrine". "Doctrines" are almost non-existent under the hands of apologists. It clearly was a church teaching, and that teaching is changing, and you are twisting yourself into pretzels to refuse admitting it. It makes no sense to me, other than you just can't admit you may be wrong on something. Like I said, the high profile apologists on FAIR agreed long ago the intro is misleading and needed changing. If the only thing wrong with the introduction was that some people are (your words) "idiots" who can't "read the dictionary", then they would not have changed it to begin with.

Because it was NOT a teaching of the Book of Mormon. And when will you read the introduction and see that there is no change? Among still says that all the Indians have Lehi on their pedigree chart. I said I don't know why they made the change, but if I were to speculate, I would say it was because of the stubborn people who refuse to read dictionary definitions and continued to perseverate that "principal" meant "all." Myself, I would just let people be ignorant if they chose to be so, and not conform my actions to that. But then I am not as nice as the Brethren.

When did I say it was a teaching of the Book of Mormon? I have been quite specific. Joseph Smith and the vast majority of prophets believed in the hemispheric model. It is extremely reasonable - in fact, the opposite of idiotic - to conclude that the introduction to the Book of Mormon, which the leaders would have approved, reflected that belief.

Thanks beastie. Like I said, I can live with the change but I wouldn't have made it just on the off chance that some idiot can't read a dictionary. Or can't understand a definition when they read it.

Oh, and that is an insult if you are one of the idiots who can't read a dictionary. But if you aren't, then you don't need to take that remark personally. And I really should whip myself because I made a typo. Words of one syllable.

Ok, I won't take that one personally.

But here are the insults you addressed to me personally:

Sorry, I thought I was having a rational discussion. Rational people don't need to bring flying spaghetti monsters into the discussion. I will try to remember that next time and dumb down my posts. :(

This was a strange insult, since the person how brought the "flying spaghetti monster" into our discussion was, ahem, Charity, but nevertheless, an insult.

And this:

You must need words of shorter syllables.

(note, she meant words of "one syllable")

So, once again, answer my question:

by the way, Charity, since you are insulting me regularly now, am I to assume that you have lost the argument and know it, and your insults are just a reflection of your frustration over having lost the argument?

[_charity]

Please note the change says that "among" the ancestors of the American Indians are Lamznite ancestors.

And I'm going to ask you again..what evidence is there that around 600 B.C. a group came from the Middle East and were ancestors of current American Indians? At this point I don't care whether or not they were important. All I want to know is what evidence do you use to conclude there were any Middle Eastern ancestry which stems from 600 B.C. arrival.

\

God said. That is good enough for me. LDS have never required scientific evidence for matters of faith.

But for those interested in learning truth, there are lots of things Joseph would have had to have guessed right about at an unbelievable rate for the Book of Mormon to have been simply a 19th century work of fiction.

[_charity]

Who said anything about doctrine? I specifically said:

Joseph Smith and the vast majority of LDS prophets did NOT believe in the "limited geography theory". You are insisting that the introduction always reflected an intent coherent with the LGT, and that is just plain nonsense. Given how you believe prophets and leaders are not infallible, I have no idea why you can't admit they are changing a teaching about the Book of Mormon.

I don't care whether or not it was a "doctrine". "Doctrines" are almost non-existent under the hands of apologists.

Poppycock.

It clearly was a church teaching, and that teaching is changing, and you are twisting yourself into pretzels to refuse admitting it.

Call for references on this one. Please post your source, Church manual, General Conference talk, Ensign article. Something official as a Church teaching.

It makes no sense to me, other than you just can't admit you may be wrong on something. Like I said, the high profile apologists on FAIR agreed long ago the intro is misleading and needed changing. If the only thing wrong with the introduction was that some people are (your words) "idiots" who can't "read the dictionary", then they would not have changed it to begin with.

I guess I have a higher tolerance for letting people make sloppy conclusions. Like I said, I am not as nice as the Brethren.

When did I say it was a teaching of the Book of Mormon? I have been quite specific. Joseph Smith and the vast majority of prophets believed in the hemispheric model. It is extremely reasonable - in fact, the opposite of idiotic - to conclude that the introduction to the Book of Mormon, which the leaders would have approved, reflected that belief.

Again, when you bring Joseph Smith into this, you are being disingenous. The introduction to the Book of Mormon was not written by him, approved by him, etc. It was written, most likely by Bruce R. McConkie. But that really isn't relevant anyway, since changing the word principal to among does not change a thing doctrinally or in the teachings of the Church. We will still teach the correct doctrine, that the Lamanites, as ancestors of the American Indian, qualify them to receieve the blessings of Abraham. That did not change.

[_charity]

I thought the "insulte or not" idea deserved its own post, so as not to derail the topic.

But here are the insults you addressed to me personally:

Sorry, I thought I was having a rational discussion. Rational people don't need to bring flying spaghetti monsters into the discussion. I will try to remember that next time and dumb down my posts. :(

This was a strange insult, since the person how brought the "flying spaghetti monster" into our discussion was, ahem, Charity, but nevertheless, an insult.

So, once again, answer my question:

by the way, Charity, since you are insulting me regularly now, am I to assume that you have lost the argument and know it, and your insults are just a reflection of your frustration over having lost the argument?

Really, beastie, you deserved it when you put up a bunch of pseudo-scientific theories and then overlooked the fact that your link called them pseudo-scientific theories. Sort of blew your argument right there. I usually expect better out of you.

And just to keep the record clear, I didn't bring up any "flying spaghetti monster" arguments. As I recall your rebuttal to my very respectable scientific paradigm shifts was a long list of crackpot science.

Can we get back to grown up talk now? And let's leave "pseudo" completely out of the conversation.

[_truth dancer]

Charity...

Are you honestly suggesting the church (manuals, missionaries, GC talks) has never taught the HGT?

Are you honestly asserting that Joseph Smith & Co. did not believe the Nephites/Lehites came to a land free of inhabitants?

Are you honestly claiming that the church teachings have consistently taught a LGT?

If so, you are either in complete denial, totally out of touch with reality, or seriously misguided.

I do not think there is even one apologists who would suggest such a thing... not a one.

In addition, I do not think there is even one LDS church leader who would agree with you.

Twist, contort, pretend, make believe all you want... ;-)



~dancer~

[_the road to hana]

The PR department doesn't run the Church.

Are you suggesting that the PR department implemented the change, and that it didn't come from higher up?

But remember, if you are a faithful Latter-day Saint, you believe in continuing revelation.

Or are you suggesting it was the result of "continuing revelation?"

It didn't all stop in 50 A.D. or 1844. The Heavens are still open, and God still speaks to man.

Most religions, Christian and otherwise, do not believe anything other than that the heavens are open, and that God speaks to man. Suggesting otherwise is a myth perpetuated in Mormonism, but it isn't correct. I'm not aware of anything in Christian history, Catholic or Protestant, that suggests otherwise; there's hundreds of years of belief in angels, apparitions, and miracles. Christians, Jews and Muslims all believe God/Allah is approachable and continues to guide and direct humankind. What is claimed by LDS leadership in Gordon B. Hinckley currently or other leaders past and present seems not to differ significantly in import from what much of the world sees in the Dalai Lama or another portion sees in the Catholic pontiff or Billy Graham. Try telling people in other religions that the heavens are closed, and they'll laugh at you. It's a little like asking them when they stopped beating their wife. They might not believe that private revelation is intended to apply to everyone, but then neither do Mormons. They might even use the language somewhat differently ("revelation" to them might not mean God appearing to someone in a grove of trees, necessarily, but it might mean some other heavenly being doing it, or it might mean what others perceive to be divine "inspiration," where no appearance from deity was involved, which certainly also is a way that the term is used in Mormonism). There are certainly other "mouthpieces" that exist, and there is belief in the accessibility of private revelation and divine help and assistance for all. Even the religion most familiar to Joseph Smith in his time, Methodism, believed in private revelation, and in the mid-nineteenth century, it was a focus of Protestant evangelicalism.

So this drumbeat of "it didn't all stop in 50 A.D. or 1844" is somewhat tiresome. It shows lack of accurate knowledge outside the scope of Mormonism.

Now, back to the question. Why are you bringing up the PR Department? Are you suggesting that the recent change in the introduction to the Book of Mormon in the Doubleday edition was simply an act of the PR Department?

Or are you suggesting that it was a product of "continuing revelation?"

Or both?

Are you suggesting that the leadership of the church had nothing to do with it? You don't exactly give the impression of being familiar with the workings inside 50 E. North Temple.