Book of Mormon Intro - "Principal Ancestors" wording changed

[_charity]

So a Patriarchal Blessing is more reliable than DNA? I think the discernment, inspiration, and implementation of PBs are questionable. Just read the BoilerPlate thread and other threads on PBs:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... arch#78424

My PB had about as much discernment as Hinckley had with Mark Hoffman.

Later in response to Guy, Charity wrote:

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?

So DNA is not important, or required, just a requirement of filling a slot on a pedigree chart. Does the slot need to be accurately filled or will any slot do? I guess a PB can just randomly put me in a pedigree slot any place the discernment decides regardless of my DNA. Is this the inspired declaration in the quote above, is that all that is required an inspired declaration? This doesn't seem to give genealogy any reason to be accurate to a blood line so why bother with genealogy?

Charity I know my response is quite convoluted (maybe on purpose and maybe not) and I am posting "among" all this ignorance and I know you have so little time but could you straighten me out, enlighten me, give me some of your discernment?

Sorry I didn't answer right back. I do have a life off the board and I was out teaching a class.

Now, to your question: DNA does not matter in determining if you are a descendant of some particular person 40 generations back. We cannot possibly carry the genetic material from all of our ancestors in our cells. Just a quick example. All individuals, M and F, carry the mtDNA of their mothers. Not their fathers or even their father's mother. Only that one person. So the mtDNA of every other female in your ancestry has disappeared. Anoither example. Men carry the y chromosome of their fathers. Every other male progenitor's y chormosome (except for the father's father,etc.) has disappeared out of their genetic makeup. But does this mean you are not descended for other males? Not at all.

Your DNA does not represent every single person you have ever descended from, but that does not mean those individuals who do not have their DNA in your cells was not there.

Thanks for the quesiton.

[_Mercury]

DNA does not matter in determining if you are a descendant of some particular person 40 generations back

Will you back up your statements with actual scientific fact or are you just going to continue to be a blithering idiot denying what you can so you can continue living in your fantasy?

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

[_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!

But BRM, the likely author of the Introduction, is very clear (from my quote above) that the dominant blood lineage of American Indians is Hebrew, which has everything to do with "DNA in the cells." But science has shown this to be false; hence, the need to deal with that troublesome Introduction.

Hello, Rollo. Long time no see. You haven't changed a bit. Still making strawman arguments.

Where do we read in the Book of Mormon Intro that "dominant blood" means DNA? I did a word search and you know what? DNA never appears in the Book of Mormon. "Dominant" means just what "principal" means in the same context. Most important.

You are a smart person, Rollo. Please don't pretend ignorance for the sake of making a point.

[_charity]

DNA does not matter in determining if you are a descendant of some particular person 40 generations back

Will you back up your statements with actual scientific fact or are you just going to continue to be a blithering idiot denying what you can so you can continue living in your fantasy?

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

If you are going to particpate in the discussion, Merc, at least have the requistie knowledge. I don't have time to go thorugh Genetics 101 for you.

Look through a basic biology text, read up about chromosomes and genes and DNA and then come back and be ready to discuss the issue with us grownups.

And please leave off the juvenile name calling. LIttle boys (or girls) often resort to name calling when they lose an argument. It isn't attractive.

[_guy sajer]

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!

But BRM, the likely author of the Introduction, is very clear (from my quote above) that the dominant blood lineage of American Indians is Hebrew, which has everything to do with "DNA in the cells." But science has shown this to be false; hence, the need to deal with that troublesome Introduction.

Hello, Rollo. Long time no see. You haven't changed a bit. Still making strawman arguments.

Where do we read in the Book of Mormon Intro that "dominant blood" means DNA? I did a word search and you know what? DNA never appears in the Book of Mormon. "Dominant" means just what "principal" means in the same context. Most important.

You are a smart person, Rollo. Please don't pretend ignorance for the sake of making a point.

Charity, based on several data points now, I'm convinced that you don't know what a strawman argument is. That, and a good one either.

[_bcspace]

Now that we know what Bruce R. McConkie meant when he wrote the intro, why are we still arguing? He represented the principal LDS view (sorry, I couldn't resist) of his time--the one handed down from the early days of the Church. Whether or not DNA proves it incorrect, there is nothing that I am aware of outside of the Book of Mormon, certainly nothing that is scientifically verifiable in any way, to suggest that the Book of Mormon is right in its 19th century vision of an ancient Israelite civilization of some notable size in the Americas.

Illogical. The 'principal' view of many LDS in the past may also have been that blacks were not valiant in the preexistence but such was never the official position of the Church.

[_Mercury]

I don't have time to go thorugh Genetics 101 for you.

Nor do you have the required knowledge. I have had several semesters of biology, specifically genetics. Once again were in a pissing contest and I am asking you to cut the crap. NO ONE outside of apologetics agrees with you.

Who, outside of your faith agrees with you? Cite the specifics and cut the childish games d****.

[_bcspace]

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

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

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Where do we read in the Book of Mormon Intro that "dominant blood" means DNA?

I'll try to go slow for your benefit:

1. I believe that BRM wrote the Introduction, including the line that the Lamanites "are the principal ancestors of the American Indians."

2. BRM wrote this about the American Indians in Mormon Doctrine: "Chiefly they were Lamanites ...."

3. BRM even goes on to discuss the "pure Lamanitish blood" (although he acknowledges some "dilution") of the American Indians: "[F]or the great majority of the descendants of the original inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere, the dominant blood lineage is that of Israel."

My dear, sweet Charity, it could not be more clear as to what BRM meant by "principal."

I did a word search and you know what? DNA never appears in the Book of Mormon.

But, guess what? It does appear in the opus of the very man who wrote the Introduction to the Book of Mormon.

"Dominant" means just what "principal" means in the same context. Most important.

Indeed, which is why BRM has made it so clear as to what he meant, despite your spin.

[_bcspace]

1. I believe that BRM wrote the Introduction, including the line that the Lamanites "are the principal ancestors of the American Indians."

2. BRM wrote this about the American Indians in Mormon Doctrine: "Chiefly they were Lamanites ...."

3. BRM even goes on to discuss the "pure Lamanitish blood" (although he acknowledges some "dilution") of the American Indians: "[F]or the great majority of the descendants of the original inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere, the dominant blood lineage is that of Israel."

None of these three meets the well established requirements for something the Church considers official. Not saying you're wrong, but I am saying that if you want to establish what the Church means, or even if the Church has defined what it means, then you'll have to look to official sources.