Book of Mormon Intro - "Principal Ancestors" wording changed

[_Runtu]

Since it appears that BRM wrote (or approved) the Introduction, I think the argument is settled that the use of "principal ancestor" means what BRM says above: "[F]or the great majority of the descendants of the original inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere, the dominant blood lineage is that of Israel."

Um, Rollo, don't you know that "dominant" is just another word for "among"? ;)

[_charity]

Mormon Doctrine is not doctrine. You honestly think using it to support a doctrinal discussion is going to work? Doctrinal discussions require doctrinal sources. And the only source of doctrine in the LDS church is the canon. All manuals, talks, and even the prophets' words have to relate to the canon. So relate your argument to the canon, and not to a book full of wishful foundationless thinking.

And if you have some support for the idea that Abraham was a real person, I'd love to see it. Some archeological mention of him, some official mention of an itinerant sheepherder in an ancient document... anything that shows he was a real person. Because otherwise, Guy's right... Abraham is a myth.

The statements I quoted from Mormon Doctrine all include the references to scriptures upon which the entry is made. I knew you wouldn't read them anyway, and used MD as a shortcut. I gave page numbers. All you really serious students can go to MD, and look up the many scriptural references. The statement is based on the canon.

You can think myth if you want. But that doesn't change the argument. Suppose you were right and Abraham was a myth, the belief system of the Israelites, of which Lehi was one, and of the Church today, which teaches the literality of Abraham.

You could as well go back to the idea that any talk we engage in here is pointless, because no one can prove the existence of God.

[_charity]

As for the vote, it has nothing to do with "truth," but with what the Mormon Church and it's leaders have taught for well over 1.5 centuries, and something that you appear to deny--that American Indians are the direct descendents of Father Lehi.

Is this really the best you can do? Gotta say, I'm underwhelmed.

Either you can't read, or you are being deliberately obtuse. I believe, and I have said over and over, that I do believe it that at least MOST, if not all, American Indians are direct descendants of Father Lehi.

I don't believe that requires "Hebrew" DNA. What it requires is Lehi filling one of the slots on the pedigree chart.

Now, do you get it?

[_Yoda]

I don't believe that requires "Hebrew" DNA. What it requires is Lehi filling one of the slots on the pedigree chart.

But, Charity, if this is the case, then the word, "principal", should still stand, and stand proudly, in my opinion.

Again, I don't understand the need for the change.

[_evolving]

You could as well go back to the idea that any talk we engage in here is pointless

No -- "it is entertainment", right -- and the more you type, the more your apologetic positions degrade into the delusional..

because no one can prove the existence of God.

and you are finally right about something -

[_charity]

I don't believe that requires "Hebrew" DNA. What it requires is Lehi filling one of the slots on the pedigree chart.

But, Charity, if this is the case, then the word, "principal", should still stand, and stand proudly, in my opinion.

Again, I don't understand the need for the change.

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!

[_Runtu]

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!

Hmmm. I think the argument was "you apologists wanted 'principal' to mean 'most important.'" Acknowledging an argument, however poor, does not mean espousing the argument. Watching you attempt to change the subject here is kind of breathtaking.

[_bcspace]

Is this yet another example of religion bending to fit with science?

No because the original statement and the new one don't conflict with each other. But it might be bending to bad apologetics if such a change were to actually be incorporated into an official work such as the Introduction in the LDS edition because such is not necessary. Although LDS doctrine is open to revisions of canon and doctrine (though no one can point to a single revision that had any truly consequential effect), it is unwise imho to effect unnecesary changes.

There is a larger issue going on here and that is the definition of canon and doctrine which many of my fellow LDS can't quite seem to pin down and it is well illustrated by this principal ancestor issue.

In the thread in question, I am arguing that all the extra items added starting in 1981 are canon. Notice that the arguments against such a notion I get in response range from "I don't believe it." to quoting to opinions of a FARMS and a BYU scholar. I have nothing against these wonderful organizations but my arguments for such a notion come from a more authoritative source, the Church itself and how it packages and presents it's canon.

Now there is no way in heck you can convince me that the 'helps' (as they put it) are not official doctrine because of official statements about what doctrine is. But there is plenty of room to wiggle on the issue of canon (except for the JST excerpts which must be canon because the Church claims they restore doctrines to existing canon) because notwithstanding the fact that my arguments come from a more authoritative source, they are still quite weak.

So, what is the point I am trying to illustrate by arguing this way? Can you guess?

One can certainly accuse me of trying steadying the ark, but aren't those other LDS who call for/wish for a change or modification of 'principal ancestors' also guilty of the same?

[_charity]

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!

[_charity]

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!

Hmmm. I think the argument was "you apologists wanted 'principal' to mean 'most important.'" Acknowledging an argument, however poor, does not mean espousing the argument. Watching you attempt to change the subject here is kind of breathtaking.

We didn't "want" it to mean that. It did mean that.