Book of Mormon Intro - "Principal Ancestors" wording changed

[_Pokatator]

I wll remember and try to get used to it. I was always taught that name calling was a sure sign of immaturity and generally resulted in frustration from not being able to measure up to the demands of the situation.

Pokatator, do you think that those who name call here also call their family members names? I sure hope not. In family situations it is a form of emotional abuse. Calling a child a name is in some ways worse than a physical blow. Bruises heal but being called stupid or an idiot or a ****** stays with a child.

I don't know, but I doubt it. It has been commented on many times that a person's online persona is often very different than they are in real life. I think I am a little different here but not a lot. I know that I can say things, test an idea, etc. without any real consequences so I am sure I am a little more risque here than I am sitting at the dinner table with the love of my life and the kids. But the conversations never go to these issues at the dinner table or the living room.

I would weigh-in that the name callers are really nice people on the outside of the internet and when not dealing with these subjects.

Of course, this is my opinion, my two cents worth, including my pair of dimes.
$.22 coming at ya. (simlie)

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Rollo said the argument is that the American Indians are Hebrews and that is DNA in the cells. The argument really is that one or more the ancestral pedigree slots is taken up by Lehi.

Not according to BRM, the guy who wrote the Introduction. And this is the same guy who said that for the "great majority" of American Indians, "the dominant blood lineage is that of Israel." Spin all you want, but what BRM meant by "principal" could not be more clear.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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.

This is no surprise. Remember, folks, this is the same woman who once posted on FAIR that "reason is the enemy of faith."

[_Zoidberg]

To try to bring the thread back to how exactly the word "principal" should be understood, I attempted to consult my Russian Book of Mormon (because my Russian Scriptures have answered a lot of scriptural questions for me that English speakers seem to have, such as about biblical view of adultery applicable only to situations in which a married woman has sex with a man who is not her husband, or the existence of female deacons) only to find that it does not include the Intro.

I suspect this is also the case with other foreign language editions, but I urge you to check yours just in case because it might help clarify the semantics for us. For instance, I could think of a Russian instance of the word "principal" that could be used the way charity argues it is used, but would be understood by me in this context to mean "most ancestors were Lamanites". We have people here who are undoubtedly in possession of Book of Mormon in Japanese and Dutch that I know of.

[_Runtu]

Do all critics of the Church think they can speak for the membership?

Do all apologists seize on an offhand remark to make blanket statement about critics? ;)

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.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. What I said was that modern sensibilities tend to shy away from or be embarrassed by the kinds of beliefs early Mormons had. Maybe you don't, but most people I know are a little mortified by talk of glossolalia and folk magic.

Would you, for example, feel comfortable joining a group of women for lunch and "singing and speaking in tongues" followed by washing and anointing each other and laying hands on each other and giving blessings? If you would, I'd venture to say you're a rare woman indeed.

[_charity]

However, it is an oversimplification to believe that name calling immediately signals not being able to measure up to the demands of the situation. Surely your psychology training did not teach you that. There are plenty of extremely intelligent people who name call out of disdain, or frustration with the inadequacies of the other party, not their own.

Generally, in a frustrating circumstnace with someone you do not respect, the standard response would be to walk away in disgust. As long as ideas are being discussed back and forth, with each party seeing themselves as meeting the "opponent" then the person sees the argument as focused on the ideas. Once they start to lose the argument, if it stays just the idea, then change occurs. If someone presents a more compelling argument, they "win" and the opponent is convinced.

But if the one who is "losing" is unwilling to change in spite of compelling argument, then very often, he/she begins to see the argument as a personal attack. It is no longer the idea. So lashing out indicates an internalization of the situation, "I am being attacked and must fight back." It becomes a matter of "I can't dispute what you say so I will attack you personally. You are stupid, a fool, etc."

I think behind it all is an underlying attitude of arrogance or pride. "I am so much smarter that this person, I can look down on him/her. And I have the right, because of my superiority to humiliate (or try to) him/her."

[Tator]

Generally, in a frustrating circumstnace with someone you do not respect, the standard response would be to walk away in disgust. As long as ideas are being discussed back and forth, with each party seeing themselves as meeting the "opponent" then the person sees the argument as focused on the ideas. Once they start to lose the argument, if it stays just the idea, then change occurs. If someone presents a more compelling argument, they "win" and the opponent is convinced.

But if the one who is "losing" is unwilling to change in spite of compelling argument, then very often, he/she begins to see the argument as a personal attack. It is no longer the idea. So lashing out indicates an internalization of the situation, "I am being attacked and must fight back." It becomes a matter of "I can't dispute what you say so I will attack you personally. You are stupid, a fool, etc."

I think behind it all is an underlying attitude of arrogance or pride. "I am so much smarter that this person, I can look down on him/her. And I have the right, because of my superiority to humiliate (or try to) him/her."

Where do you get these ideas? "Generally, the standard response would be to walk away in disgust."

What planet are YOU living on? Seriously, do you imagine you've gotten these ideas from your psychological studies? If so, they are taking place in an ivory tower, far, far, far removed from real life.

[_charity]

Would you, for example, feel comfortable joining a group of women for lunch and "singing and speaking in tongues" followed by washing and anointing each other and laying hands on each other and giving blessings? If you would, I'd venture to say you're a rare woman indeed.

If I were going out for a "girls go out to lunch thing," I doubt it. But in a sacred circumstance I wouldn't be uncomfortable at all. Setting is everything.

[_beastie]

If I were going out for a "girls go out to lunch thing," I doubt it. But in a sacred circumstance I wouldn't be uncomfortable at all. Setting is everything.

Do you imagine you are representative of the feelings of most church members?

I can't think of a single member I knew who would be comfortable speaking in tongues. In fact, I knew several who mocked the pentecostals for it.

[_Runtu]

Do you imagine you are representative of the feelings of most church members?

I can't think of a single member I knew who would be comfortable speaking in tongues. In fact, I knew several who mocked the pentecostals for it.

That's been my experience, as well. Speaking in tongues is something people do in other churches, not ours. I've even heard church members suggest that glossolalia is Satanic.

As I said, charity is a rare woman indeed. I'm glad the church has true believers like her. I was beginning to think they were a vanishing breed.