Still want to fight about the intro?

[_harmony]

1. The truths of the Gospel do not depend on what fallible individuals believe them to be. If I misunderstand some of those truths, it doesn't not diminish them.

It's amazing how many LDS see this only from one side of this equation.

[_Jason Bourne]

2. Fallible people may get something wrong now and again. If all the prophets from Joseph Smith to present believed that ALL the Native Americans were descendants of Lamanites,(and if there isn't even one Lamanite ancestor on the pedigree charts of some) that doesn't mean that the prophets weren't inspired at other times or that they never received revelation.

How many things can a fallible prophet get wrong and still be a prophet?

[_harmony]

2. Fallible people may get something wrong now and again. If all the prophets from Joseph Smith to present believed that ALL the Native Americans were descendants of Lamanites,(and if there isn't even one Lamanite ancestor on the pedigree charts of some) that doesn't mean that the prophets weren't inspired at other times or that they never received revelation.

How many things can a fallible prophet get wrong and still be a prophet?

Obviously a lot.

[_charity]

But one would think that if they are "prophets of God," they would get these things right at least some of the time! I tend to follow the principle of Occam's razor and conclude they ARE just fallible people, like the rest of us, and we're all doing the best we can.

But until I see a real indication that for some reason God is telling a few choice men something that he is not telling the rest of us, and reality finally backs it up , then I'll live my life as if I can determine good and bad myself. When other "men" tell me I should live my life a way they say is from God, I expect their words to be consistent with reality. When it is not, logic forces me to conclude they are not what they claim to be.

You haven't noticed any thing they have gotten right?

God doesn't tell them things they don't then tell us. They are conduits for the revelations of God. We have all the words God has given them. Now, if we don't understand what God said, that is our fault.

[_BishopRic]

You haven't noticed any thing they have gotten right?

God doesn't tell them things they don't then tell us. They are conduits for the revelations of God. We have all the words God has given them. Now, if we don't understand what God said, that is our fault.

They get much right. So does the Pope and other leaders of faith, as well as the Dalai Lama, etc.. No, I don't see anything superior to these others, and it seems they make many more of these "fallible" mistakes than others.

I think they all do the best they can, and they all make mistakes.

[_harmony]

You haven't noticed any thing they have gotten right?

God doesn't tell them things they don't then tell us. They are conduits for the revelations of God. We have all the words God has given them. Now, if we don't understand what God said, that is our fault.

They get much right. So does the Pope and other leaders of faith, as well as the Dalai Lama, etc.. No, I don't see anything superior to these others, and it seems they make many more of these "fallible" mistakes than others.

I think they all do the best they can, and they all make mistakes.

That's because they're just men and they don't talk to God directly anymore than anyone else does. They see through a dark glass just like the rest of us.

[_bcspace]

I don't believe any fallibility is evidenced in the intro with either 'principle' or 'among the' or one then the other. The Book of Mormon makes specific claims about the interaction between the descendents of the Lamanites and the Gentiles who came later. Given an LGT, and the political nature of what a Lamanite was post-Christ, there still is no conflict.

[_charity]

That's because they're just men and they don't talk to God directly anymore than anyone else does. They see through a dark glass just like the rest of us.

You might want to talk to the bishop about that on your next temple recommend interview when you get to Question #2.

They are just men. Fallible men, as are all of us. But they can and do talk to God directly on occasion. We can talk to God, too, but he won't tell us anything that doesn't pertain to us individually.

[_skippy the dead]

I've been giving the issue a bit of thought today. It seems to me that the change to the intro is actually fairly meaningless unless there is some actual information coming from the head of the church saying what it means. The introductory paragraph of the article actually captures the situation quite well:

LDS biologist Trent Stephens thinks he may have triggered the change in the Book of Mormon's introduction that became public last week.

(emphasis mine)

There's a guy who thinks that just maybe something he's thought about maybe triggered a change that wasn't announced, but "became public." There's nothing from the church itself to explain what the change means, or why it was made. Just speculation and possibilities. Hell, even the original introduction wasn't officially endorsed by the head of the church, so any changes are similarly "unofficial." Sorenson can spend a lifetime looking for parallels (and believe me, if you look long enough you can establish parallels between just about anything, real or imagined), but until the head of the church says "Yup, this is exactly right", it's neither persuasive nor compelling.

I cannot understand the argument of "we don't know" or "the prophet hasn't asked the question needed to gain the revelation." The president of the church is almost one hundred years old - if he hasn't gotten around to this questions yet, when does he plan to do so? I surely would want to know where the events of the Book of Mormon took place, and where we might find more information to support the history of the civilization if I were heading the organization that's holds up the Book of Mormon as the most correct book.

It's just another plateful of bologna.

[_BishopRic]

That's because they're just men and they don't talk to God directly anymore than anyone else does. They see through a dark glass just like the rest of us.

You might want to talk to the bishop about that on your next temple recommend interview when you get to Question #2.

Or not. One of my pet peeves about some LDS members is their assumed need to tell others how to live their lives.