Book of Mormon Intro - "Principal Ancestors" wording changed

[_charity]

So the information about the Natives was ONLY in the other record? That seems odd since other cultural and historic items like money, government, other immigrant groups like the Mulekites, animals, crops, etc. made their way into the testament record, but somehow the Natives are only in the history record. Nothing about preaching to the natives? Nothing about observing the Natives false religions? The natives don't even appear on the periphery, such as "Behold, I tried to pray but the chants of the savages as they commenced their buffalo hunt distracted me." Nothing about going to war with the natives. The wars were only between Nephites and Lamanites, but you would think over 1000 years the Native might want to fight someone. I mean come on. The Americas were densely populated with natives. They had to be a major part of both the history part, and the spiritual part of the Nephites and Lamanites.

No, there are plenty of peripheral mentions of the others in the Book of Mormon. It just doesn't come with little sticky notes that say, "Look right here. Here it is." But here is a message board version of the little yellow sticky note. The following is a link to an article "Were there others here?"

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/display ... V3LnBocA==

P. S. It is doubtful that any Nephites lived on the Great Plains. It was pretty hard to have a buffalo herd in Guatemala.

[_Runtu]

No, there are plenty of peripheral mentions of the others in the Book of Mormon. It just doesn't come with little sticky notes that say, "Look right here. Here it is." But here is a message board version of the little yellow sticky note. The following is a link to an article "Were there others here?"

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/display ... V3LnBocA==

Yeah, I've read Sorensen's piece before. This is one of those cases where the presence of "others" must be accounted for, both in terms of Book of Mormons claims about population size and also for the mere fact that there were indeed millions of others living in the Americas during the supposed time of the Nephites. That Sorensen has to dig and stretch for "hints" in the text shows just how weak the position is. He has to grasp at linguistic clues while discounting the clear statements in the text that the land was reserved for the Nephites and the others God brought (Mulekites and Jaredites). Maybe apologists should be arguing that God led the Asians to migrate so that populations would be sufficient to allow for Nephite wars.

[_Blixa]

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.

This, again, is a major misunderstand of what speaking in tongues is. Occasionally, I suppose someone would "speak in the Adamic language" or whatever they call it.

But the gift of tongues most often occurs in the following settings:

1. A person is able to speak in a langauge (German, Spanish, Dutch,etc.) which he was not previously fluent in, to a specific person or persons for a specific purpose. Ex. an Egnlish speaker can suddenly deliver a sermon in Spanish to a group of Spanish speaking people.

2. A person is able to understand things said in a language they do not know. Ex. an English speaker is in a Spanish speaking congregation, and can undestand the proceedings in Spanish.

Both these circumstances are transitory. Situation specific.

3. Missionaries who are learning a foreign language learn it more easily and more quickly than if they did not have the gift.

Any time a person speaks in a different language than their own in a Church meeting, there should be a translator availalbe. It would not be seen as a gift from God if a person were to speak some unknonw tongue and no one know what he/she was saying. It would not edify anyone.

Presentism plain and simple. This is, as runtu pointed out, an entirely modern and ahistorical recasting of both the phrase and the practices of it.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

It is doubtful that any Nephites lived on the Great Plains.

Joseph put them pretty close. Here's what Joseph wrote to Emma in 1834, while he was roaming the countryside with Zion's Camp:

The whole of our journey, in the midst of so large a company of social honest and sincere men, wandering over the plains of the Nephites, recounting occasionally the history of the Book of Mormon, roving over the mounds of that once beloved people of the Lord, picking up their skulls & their bones, as a proof of its divine authenticity, and gazing upon a country the fertility, the splendour and the goodness so indescribable, all serves to pass away time unnoticed.

[_Runtu]

It is doubtful that any Nephites lived on the Great Plains.

Joseph put them pretty close. Here's what Joseph wrote to Emma in 1834, while he was roaming the countryside with Zion's Camp:

The whole of our journey, in the midst of so large a company of social honest and sincere men, wandering over the plains of the Nephites, recounting occasionally the history of the Book of Mormon, roving over the mounds of that once beloved people of the Lord, picking up their skulls & their bones, as a proof of its divine authenticity, and gazing upon a country the fertility, the splendour and the goodness so indescribable, all serves to pass away time unnoticed.

Dude, that was just his opinion. Get a clue! ;)

[_charity]

No, there are plenty of peripheral mentions of the others in the Book of Mormon. It just doesn't come with little sticky notes that say, "Look right here. Here it is." But here is a message board version of the little yellow sticky note. The following is a link to an article "Were there others here?"

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/display ... V3LnBocA==

Yeah, I've read Sorensen's piece before. This is one of those cases where the presence of "others" must be accounted for, both in terms of Book of Mormons claims about population size and also for the mere fact that there were indeed millions of others living in the Americas during the supposed time of the Nephites. That Sorensen has to dig and stretch for "hints" in the text shows just how weak the position is. He has to grasp at linguistic clues while discounting the clear statements in the text that the land was reserved for the Nephites and the others God brought (Mulekites and Jaredites). Maybe apologists should be arguing that God led the Asians to migrate so that populations would be sufficient to allow for Nephite wars.

Dealing with linguistics is a part of dealing with a text.

[_Mister Scratch]

The intro did not come directly from the Lord's mouthpiece. That is the president of the church. Bruce R. McConkie was not ever the president of the Church.

I wish you would get these things right, Scratch.

Ha ha ha, Charity. Do you think that something as critical as the intro to the Book of Mormon, which, let's face it far, far more people are likely to read as compared to the rest of the text, would be published without the full supervisory approval of the FP? BRM may have penned the text, but the FP used their Power of Discernment to determine whether or not it was suitable / "of God." Now, of course, they are reneging.

The claim that isn't there, is that every single American Indian had no other progenitor's except Lehites.

Wait a second. If what you're saying is correct, then how do you account for remarks such as SWK's? Was he really saying that only some American Indians were becoming "white and delightsome" before his eyes?

Your misinterpreation has been duly noted on this thread. You don't need to bring in other issues.

I haven't misinterpreted anything, my dear Charity, and I would recommend against pooh-poohing away "issues" that have a direct bearing on the discussion at hand.

I think that a key problem with your argument is this: Nowhere, in the history of the Church, has any of the Brethren *ever* said "The intro is referring to only a portion of the Native Americans." This has never been said, not one single time, ever. In fact, the places where the Brethren are commenting upon this--places such as Mormon Doctrine--seem to directly contradict this new, updated view. So, I ask you: Why is this only being qualified now? Why has it taken nearly two hundred years of Church history to make clear that this has "actually" been the case all along?

[_Runtu]

Dealing with linguistics is a part of dealing with a text.

Your point being?

[_SatanWasSetUp]

No, there are plenty of peripheral mentions of the others in the Book of Mormon. It just doesn't come with little sticky notes that say, "Look right here. Here it is." But here is a message board version of the little yellow sticky note. The following is a link to an article "Were there others here?"

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/display ... V3LnBocA==

P. S. It is doubtful that any Nephites lived on the Great Plains. It was pretty hard to have a buffalo herd in Guatemala.

The buffalo hunt was an exaggeration of the type of peripheral stuff you would expect. Certainly I would expect something more significant than Sorensen offers. Sorensen's suggested proofs of others are too indirect to be proof of anything. For example, one if his clues is the Nephite use of corn. His theory goes since Nephites couldn't have learned about corn in the Old World, they must have learned about it in the new world, and they could only be taught about corn by the Natives. That's it. That's one of his proofs of others in the Book of Mormon. That's not very convincing to me, because another possibility is Joseph Smith or whoever wrote the Book of Mormon took what he knew about Indians (they eat corn) and applied it to his characters, who are the forefathers of the Indians.

[_charity]

Dealing with linguistics is a part of dealing with a text.

Your point being?

I was responding to what you said: "He has to grasp at linguistic clues while discounting the clear statements in the text that the land was reserved for the Nephites and the others God brought (Mulekites and Jaredites)."

You seemed to be saying that linguistics were not important.