guy sajer wrote:The context is clear, until recently, Mormon doctrine was that the American Indian was a direct blood descendent of Father Lehi. All, or almost all of us, who served missions taught this, prophets have taught it, the rank and file have believed it, and it's only in your apologetic mind (and those of your apologists in arms) that Mormons have historically taught and believed anything else.
Before the apologist lies to others, he must first lie to himself.
“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.”
guy sajer wrote:One problem with this. Abraham is not a real person. Your entire reasoning is based an assumption that a fictional character existed in reality.
Using one myth to support another myth is not demonstrative of high reasoning.
Yeah, but guy, we can't prove he didn't exist, and that, to apologists, is the important point.
“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.”
Most people don't really understand the numbers involved in a genealogy. Eveyr generation doubles, going back. By 20 generations back, which isn't even 1,000 years, the number of spaces on a family tree is in the millions.
You are one of that "most people". Another 100 generations back, all 6000 years, (=B.C 4000), and there are Adam and Eve only. At that level, the family tree has two space.
Interesting, eh?
120 doubling means 2^120 which is a little more than 10^36, 36 zero after the leading "1".
Europeans call it hexillion (because there are 6 * 6 zeroes).
In US this is called as undecillion (11 * 3 zeroes + additional 3, a stupid system )
Even if we abandon the creation story, the "back in time -> less people" remains true.
___ Ludwig from Hungary
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco - To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
charity wrote:You are neglecting the concept of the covenant race. Abraham was promised certain blessings that would go to his literal descendants. It was important in the days of the children of Israel and is still important. Today faithful LDS get patriarchal blessings. The major purpose of the blessing is to declare the lineage of the person. This is why it is important that ONE of the slots on the family tree is filled by a descendant of Abraham.
Most people don't really understand the numbers involved in a genealogy. Eveyr generation doubles, going back. By 20 generations back, which isn't even 1,000 years, the number of spaces on a family tree is in the millions. Pick out any one individual American Indian and how many of those slots will be filled by Lehite descendants and how many will be Asian?
But if there is only one descendant of Abraham, then the individual is part of the covenant. That is the principal ancestor.
So tell me again, for us dumb people, how changing the wording to 'among' makes your theory more 'understandable'?
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
prin·ci·pal /ˈprɪnsəpəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[prin-suh-puhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective 1. first or highest in rank, importance, value, etc.; chief; foremost. 2. of, of the nature of, or constituting principal or capital: a principal investment.
a·mong (ə-mŭng') Pronunciation Key preparation. In the midst of; surrounded by: a pine tree among cedars. In the group, number, or class of: She is among the wealthy. In the company of; in association with: traveling among a group of tourists. By many or the entire number of; with many: a custom popular among the Greeks. By the joint action of: Among us, we will finish the job. With portions to each of: Distribute this among you. Each with the other: Don't fight among yourselves. See Usage Note at between.
Charity, these are common definitions for both words used. Principal and among are hardly interchangeable. "Principal" indicates importance. Even in your example of patriarchal blessings, they are important specifically because of how that lineage ties with Father Abraham and the through the Ten Tribes.
Indicating that the Lamanites are the "principal" lineage for the American Indian indicates that this lineage is of significant importance.
It most certainly changes the meaning of the sentence.
liz3564 wrote:Charity, these are common definitions for both words used. Principal and among are hardly interchangeable. "Principal" indicates importance. Even in your example of patriarchal blessings, they are important specifically because of how that lineage ties with Father Abraham and the through the Ten Tribes.
Indicating that the Lamanites are the "principal" lineage for the American Indian indicates that this lineage is of significant importance.
It most certainly changes the meaning of the sentence.
Having watched the "principal" debate for quite some time, I'll summarize.
Critics: DNA proves that the "Lamanites" were not the principal ancestors of the Native Americans.
Apologists: In this case, "principal" says nothing about numerical or genetic influence. It means "most prominent."
Critics: That's a revision of what the church has always taught.
Apologists: No it's not. You guys are just reading an untenable position into one word in an effort to tear down the church.
Book of Mormon editors: "Among" is probably a more defensible word than "principal," so let's change it.
Apologists: Of course, "among" is what we meant all along.
liz3564 wrote:Charity, these are common definitions for both words used. Principal and among are hardly interchangeable. "Principal" indicates importance. Even in your example of patriarchal blessings, they are important specifically because of how that lineage ties with Father Abraham and the through the Ten Tribes.
Indicating that the Lamanites are the "principal" lineage for the American Indian indicates that this lineage is of significant importance.
It most certainly changes the meaning of the sentence.
Having watched the "principal" debate for quite some time, I'll summarize.
Critics: DNA proves that the "Lamanites" were not the principal ancestors of the Native Americans. Apologists: In this case, "principal" says nothing about numerical or genetic influence. It means "most prominent." Critics: That's a revision of what the church has always taught. Apologists: No it's not. You guys are just reading an untenable position into one word in an effort to tear down the church. Book of Mormon editors: "Among" is probably a more defensible word than "principal," so let's change it. Apologists: Of course, "among" is what we meant all along.
I knew if I trumped out definitions, I would get the English degree holders involved.
Maybe this point's been made, but surely the glaring insanity here is that the Lamanites were supposed to be the Principal AncestorS. Plural. No singular.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
I stopped off at Deseret Book on the way back to the office. There, they have the Doubleday edition of the Book of Mormon, only in a popular-priced version with smaller dimensions, about the size of a paper-back book, although still hardbound. In this newer printing, the wording in the introduction has indeed been changed from "principal ancestors" to "among the ancestors."
So we have seen a very subtle change occur, just within the last little while. As I mentioned, the Doubleday edition was prepared with the cooperation of the Church, so I'm confident this change has the approval of the Brethren.
If Scott is so "confident this change has the approval of the Brethren" then why should it follow that the prior statement did not as well?
1. Abrahamic covenant: ". ..he [Abraham] entered into celestial marriage (which is the covenant of exaltation), gaining assurance that he would have eternal increase; finally, he received a promise that all of these blessings would be offeed to all of his mortal posterity." Mormon Doctrine (1979) p. 13
2. Patriarchal blessings: "Patriarch blessings contemplate an inspired declaration of the lineage of the recipient, and aslo when so moved upon the theSpirit, a inspired and prophetic statement about the life mission of the recipient." MD (1979)p. 558
3. Abraham himself: You can say myth if you want. Prove it.
4. Genealogical numbers: Of course, genealogical lines cross. Some king of Portugal, I forget which, had only 167 different individuals where he should have had 256. (As I recall there were also a number genetic anomalies.) Any individual who has done any degree of genealogical research knows that while there are places where lines merge, there are still very large numbers of progenitors involved. People who do not do generalogical research are generally pretty ignorant of this fact.
5. Beastie, "Those silly little ignorant people, who actually believed the Lehites moved into a previously unoccupied land."
Not silly. They just didn't read the text of the Book of Mormon very carefully.
6. Mishie: "I thought we all agreed they were definitely NOT any of the ancestors of the American Indian." Who is WE?
7. Who knows: " How does changing it to 'among' make it 'more understandable' and consistent with your definition of 'principle'?" It removes the necessity for understanding evidently the complicated concept of "principal ancestor" from the equation. The student of the book (not just the skimmer) will get it eventually.
8. cksalmon: "Now, wait just a minute, Charity. This issue has come up on FAIR/MADB and the apologetic answer was that "principal" means "most important"--not numerically largest.
I absolutely agree here.
But this change completely obliterates that apologetic line of reasoning. "Among the ancestors" doesn't mean, in any sense, "the most important ancestors."
It doesn't have to say that. To know that the person is a descendant of Abraham is the important part.
You argue that "principal ancestor" has always meant merely "among the ancestors." And then you go to argue the same apologetic line referenced above. The problem is that "principal ancestor" has completely disappeared from the DoubleDay publication. It's not there, if Scott Lloyd is to be believed. So, the proposal in the DoubleDay edition is much more modest and much less falsifiable than the proposal in the official LDS edition.
I have always said "principal ancestor" meant the most important. I will repeat again, so you won't have to misunderstand anymore, the important part is to know that Abraham is a progenitor. But this is obviously only important to those who believe in the Abrahamic covenant. To those who don't, it isn't a point worth arguing.
9. Mishmagnet said, "I've got it. When it said they were ancestors it didn't mean DNA-like ancestors but rather spiritual ancestors. Kind of like Jesus is my older brother, but we aren't related even a little bit. Kind of like we were all brothers and sisters at church but we weren't related. Just in spirit."
Wrong, you don't get it. Do you have the DNA imprint of every single one of your ancestors back 2,000 years? Like I said, people don't really understand genealogy or genetics. Take you mtDNA, for instance. It will identify one line of your family tree. The very right hand side all the way back. Your mother's mother's mother' . . . . mtDNA. What about your father's mother. or your mother's father' mother? Do you have any of their mtDNA? The answer is no. Does that mean you are not a physical desceandant of all these other women? Not at all. You are their physical descendant and not just their "spiritual" descendant. Now do you get it?
10. guy sajer said: "So, Charity, if we polled 1,000 randomly selected rank and file believers unacquainted with the DNA issues and apologetic dismissals of it (which is, probably, the large majority of members), what % do you think would interpret "principle ancestor" similarly to the erst of us ignorant types and what % would intepret it similarly to you?
I don't know. But it doesn't matter. If 90% of the population believes that the moon is made up of green cheese, it doesn't change the facts. Since when is truth up for majority vote?
The context is clear, until recently, Mormon doctrine was that the American Indian was a direct blood descendent of Father Lehi. All, or almost all of us, who served missions taught this, prophets have taught it, the rank and file have believed it, and it's only in your apologetic mind (and those of your apologists in arms) that Mormons have historically taught and believed anything else.
The Church still teaches that American Indians are direct blood descedants of Father Lehi. And yes, that recognizes that it may not be 100% of American Indians. But such a statement would mean "most." But where you get off thinking this means that to be a blood descendant requires your DNA to be Hebrew (whatever that would have been in 600 B.C.), go back and read the previous posts.
11 who knows said: "So tell me again, for us dumb people, how changing the wording to 'among' makes your theory more 'understandable'?" It takes the word "principal" out of the statement. I don't know why the decision was made, but if it was me, I would have made it because perseverating anti's keep jumping on it because they are constitutionally incapable of understanding what the word means.
12. liz posted the definitions, and finally admits that "principal" meant most important, not just numerically significant. Thanks liz. But notice in the defintion of "among" that she does not bold is this: "in the group, number of ,class of." Thus Lamanites are in the group of ancestors of America Indians." Not just happening to be standing next to. Talk about a stretch.
DANG. I just got involved in another one of those time-killer topics.