Thanksgiving, Indians, and the recent change to the Book of Mormon

[_harmony]

Disputed theories eventually usually win out.

Whoa. CFR! Give us 10 disputed theories that have "won out", or withdraw this statement.

[_charity]

I don't consider asking you to show that a very-likely-nonexistent people existed a waste of time. [

Why? You know you aren't going to change my mind that they existed. Is it a sort of a taunt?

That only works if they're right, charity. When our leaders are wrong, it behooves them to tell the members, so the members know that their lack of confirmation was correct. Kinda like when McConkie made his famous statement, and admitted he'd been wrong. I had a lot of respect for him that day. I have little for our present leaders.

And so who was wrong about what? Please specify.

I agree; correlation is about seeing that the same things are taught. And since we know that bishops everywhere make sure that no one anywhere ever teaches anything that isn't in the manual, it stands to reason that if incorrect things are taught, it's from the manual. Unless you're saying that bishops aren't doing their job?

Bishops are responsible to correct errors over the pulpit. And I have heard bishops correct what was said in a talk. Haven't you? They stand up and very nicely correct incorrect doctrine.

In various other teaching situations, there a different layers of responsibility. The teacher is supposed to teach from the manual. As a class member, I have the responsibility to have studied the lesson myself before going to class so I know what is in the lesson. Then if any incorrect doctrine is taught, if the teacher does it, I should correct him/her. If another class member makes an incorrect statement and the teacher doesn't correct him/her, then I have the responsibility to do so.

I always talked to my children about what they learned in their classes. And I have gone to teachers and corrected mistakes they made. Nicely, of course. Parents are responsible for what their children are taught.
If you have been letting incorrect teachings or doctrine stand, then you are culpable.

Theory being the operative word. Please tell me this isn't another of the times you misuse and abuse a source, because I'm going to have to CFR, and please make sure you connect diffusionist theory to the Book of Mormon. We wouldn't want people to think you were trying to connect apples to plastic, now would we? Now would you be so kind as to tie this to the Book of Mormon?

The applications to the Book of Mormon from the new discoveries in diffusionism is the magnitutde of intercontinental cultural contact. This applies directly to whether or not the three migrations described in the Book of Mormon could have occurred. One of the biggest arguments has been that there was no evidence of such travel. Now, it is highly likely that there were many trips across both ways. Which supports the Book of Mormon accounts. That isn't apple to plastic at all.

If he says, "this is the way I view the facts" or "this is what I think those facts mean" then I would agree with your. But if he says, "this is the way it is" then he is not giving them the truth.

So now you're going to tell him how to talk to his family? Wow. Chutzpah to the max!

I was responding to marg's statement about how he could tell his family what his views were. But he had not made the statement as "his views" but telling them unalterable facts. Now that is chutzpah.

Why should he not say "this is the way it is", if that's what he believes? It's his responsibility to take care of his stewardship in his own way, with his own inspiration, remember?

Wow. I am blown over the by the double standard here. We faithful LDS are always being told what we beleive is just our beliefs. But of course, the critic is not held to that standard?

[_beastie]

Disputed theories eventually usually win out.

Yeah, this one blew me away, too. No way around it, Charity, you're going to have to back this up with cold, hard, facts.

But we're making progress. You've gone from "indisputable" to at least accepting it is disputed.


by the way, critics don't tell you what you believe. Critics often explain how they interpret or interpreted the teachings of the prophets, and when their interpretation disagrees with yours, then you protest they're "telling you what you believe".

So would Joseph Smith have agreed with your interpretation of "principal"?

Royal bloodline emphasis does correlate with Mormon theology. That's why the leaders of the church had the right to take other men's wives, for example. They were of the royal bloodline. It was their bloodline that needed to predominate, not the bloodlines of lesser men. I'm just not certain how it would set with most modern Mormons, who have been taught a more egalitarian theology.

[_beastie]

by the way, you can find lots of interesting discussions between people who have studied the subject. For example, this:

http://www.angelfire.com/zine/meso/meso/nomaize.txt

is a summary of an article written that debunked the entire "maize in India" theory, Payak, M.M., and Sachan, J.K.S.
1993 "Maize Ears Not Sculpted in 13th Century Somnathpur Temple in India." Economic botany. APR 01 1993, vol. 47
no. 2, P. 202-

This article's abstract says:

The contention that objects in the hands of male and female deities sculpted
on the exterior of the Kesav Temple at Somnathpur near the city of Mysore,
Karnataka State, India, represent maize ears is rejected on linguistic,
religious, sculptural, archaeological, and botanical grounds. The stone
inscriptions associated with the temple list items or commodities used in
worship, maize is not included. We find no evidence for maize figuring in any
kind of religious ritual or worship. The word for maize used currently in the
Kannada language is "Musukin Jola" which refers to a kind of millet resembling
sorghum (jola). This appelation is of recent origin and does not appear in
any literary work contemporary with the period of construction of Somnathpur
temple. The wall images do not fully simulate in form and proportion the
actual human figures. The beaded ornamentation, likewise, of the hand-held
object shows considerable variation and its comparison whether on qualitative
or quantitative basis with actual maize kernels of both primitive and modern
maize is inappropriate. The variation in form and proportion and stylistic
features of these objects is ascribed to their being the work of different
sculptors. Maize now grown near the temple comprises modern cultivars,
especially hybrids released during the early 1960's. It is inconceivable that
none of the primitive and advanced types of maize purported to be represented
in the temple sculpture would have been considered worthy of cultivation from
thirteenth century to the present time. We hold that these temple sculptures
do not represent maize or its ear but an imaginary fruit bearing pearls known
in Sanskrit as "Muktaphala"

-- end of abstract.

The article is very much to the point, for in less than three pages of text
they just throw item after item of counterargumentation without too much
adornment. Note also that Johannessen and Parker chose not to cite a previous
brief exchange (in Nature) with the same authors on the same topic.

When looking at ancient art, people often see what they want to see. Waldek, an eighteenth century explorer, seeing elephants in Mesaomerica is a perfect example. Not only did he see "elephants" but then he drew representations of what he saw that distorted the images enough that others thought they were elephants, as well. But they never were elephants, and photographs of what Waldek drew as elephants demonstrate that abundantly. They were either macaws, tapirs, or the long-nosed god.

[_charity]

Disputed theories eventually usually win out.

Yeah, this one blew me away, too. No way around it, Charity, you're going to have to back this up with cold, hard, facts.

I am not a scientific historian. But here are a few examples.

1. I already cited geocentrism vs heliocentrism. Heliocentrism was first proposed before Christ. It was still ridiculed an dconsidered heresy by the Catholic Church when Copernicus porposed it in the 1500's. But do we will still believe that the universe rotates around the earth?

2. A second one I posted was the gradual versus catastrophic extinction of the dinosaurs. Now that catastrophic extinction is accepted they are only arguing about whether or not it was volcanic destruction or an asteroid.

3. Continental drift was not accepted at first when proposed but is fully accepted today.

4. Predestination according to Newtonian physics was overturned by relativity and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

If you have read Kuhn you know that there is always conflict when new theories are proposed. The one about the dinosaurs was particularly vicious with scientists on both sides calling each other liars and hacks.

I don't think I need to go further. You can see what I mean.

But we're making progress. You've gone from "indisputable" to at least accepting it is disputed.

The editor of the work, not LDS, said indisputable. Argue with him.

by the way, critics don't tell you what you believe. Critics often explain how they interpret or interpreted the teachings of the prophets, and when their interpretation disagrees with yours, then you protest they're "telling you what you believe".
So would Joseph Smith have agreed with your interpretation of "principal"?

I don't speak for Joseph Smith, but he never read the introduction to the Book of Mormon. He didn't tranlsate or write it.

Royal bloodline emphasis does correlate with Mormon theology. That's why the leaders of the church had the right to take other men's wives, for example. They were of the royal bloodline. It was their bloodline that needed to predominate, not the bloodlines of lesser men. I'm just not certain how it would set with most modern Mormons, who have been taught a more egalitarian theology.

You really had to reach on that one. I was referring to genealogy as you very well know. So this little sideswipe is really dishonest, beastie. I am embarresed for you. It shows a weakness in your own belief in your argument.

And yes, the Children of Israel are chosen. Chosen by God to the extent that we willingly obey Him. We are sons and daughters of a King. You can read that in the Bible.

But we are not talking about mortal kings. The only birthright that is important is as a son or daughter of Israel.

[_beastie]

I don't think I need to go further. You can see what I mean.

Actually, you need to go a lot further. You asserted that disputed theories "usually" win out. To prove your assertion that they "usually" win out, you're going to have to do a lot more than you have done.

We all know that new theories that eventually turn out to be correct can be disputed at their origin. You are teaching us nothing new. What I want to know is what your evidence is for "disputed theories usually winning out."

The editor of the work, not LDS, said indisputable. Argue with him.

You quoted him in agreement. I'm arguing with you. Well, I was arguing with you before you conceded that it is not only NOT "indisputable" but is actually hotly disputed and rejected by the majority of scholars with expertise in the field.

I don't speak for Joseph Smith, but he never read the introduction to the Book of Mormon. He didn't tranlsate or write it.

You know as well as I do that Joseph Smith believed in the hemispheric model of the Book of Mormon. You're being coy.

You really had to reach on that one. I was referring to genealogy as you very well know. So this little sideswipe is really dishonest, beastie. I am embarresed for you. It shows a weakness in your own belief in your argument.

And yes, the Children of Israel are chosen. Chosen by God to the extent that we willingly obey Him. We are sons and daughters of a King. You can read that in the Bible.

But we are not talking about mortal kings. The only birthright that is important is as a son or daughter of Israel.

I'm referring to genealogy, too, Charity. You ought to be clear on what the argument actually is before you claim victory.

The royal bloodline in the early days of the church were Joseph Smith and others with high callings in the church. They were the "elect" who were among the "noble and great" ones, which included Abraham. Do you deny this?

Polygamy did not increase the progeny overall within the church. It increased the progeny of certain men - the leaders of the church. Their bloodlines were being increased. They were the royalty of the early church.

[_charity]

Actually, you need to go a lot further. You asserted that disputed theories "usually" win out. To prove your assertion that they "usually" win out, you're going to have to do a lot more than you have done.

We all know that new theories that eventually turn out to be correct can be disputed at their origin. You are teaching us nothing new. What I want to know is what your evidence is for "disputed theories usually winning out."

Oh, for Pete's sake. To go through the list of scientific theories which have been replaced, and to show the resistance that occurred would be tedious reading. How about the idea that the earth was round, or the theories on physical movement (remember Rene Descartes idea on a kind of hydralic system?), theories of disease. . . .oh, get a grip. Prove it?

The editor of the work, not LDS, said indisputable. Argue with him.

You quoted him in agreement. I'm arguing with you. Well, I was arguing with you before you conceded that it is not only NOT "indisputable" but is actually hotly disputed and rejected by the majority of scholars with expertise in the field.

The evidence can be indisputable and people can still dispute it because they are set in their ways.

You know as well as I do that Joseph Smith believed in the hemispheric model of the Book of Mormon. You're being coy.

And what does that have to do with the introduction to the Book of Mormon?

I'm referring to genealogy, too, Charity. You ought to be clear on what the argument actually is before you claim victory.

So if you are referring to genealogy, what are you doing wandering off down the path into polygamy? I know that is what you anti's consider to be the Howitzer in your arsenal. But should it be everyother word you speak?

The royal bloodline in the early days of the church were Joseph Smith and others with high callings in the church. They were the "elect" who were among the "noble and great" ones, which included Abraham. Do you deny this?

The elect were the Saints. But I can see how the elitists among you always want to think of exclusive cliques etc. Doesn't work that way in the body of the Saints.

Since you don't seem to understand what I meant by my "bloodline" example, let me give you a simpler example.

If I were to want to join the Daughters of the American Revolution, I have to prove descent from a Revolutionary War veteran. I so happens that one of my 3rd great-grandfathers was one. Now, back that far, I have 62 progenitors. Does this mean that all my DNA comes from this one 3rd great grandparent? No, of course not. But the purposes of the DAR he is my principal ancestor. Or to put it another way, I have a Revolutionary War veteran among my ancestors.

See how easy that is?

[_the road to hana]

If I were to want to join the Daughters of the American Revolution, I have to prove descent from a Revolutionary War veteran. I so happens that one of my 3rd great-grandfathers was one. Now, back that far, I have 62 progenitors. Does this mean that all my DNA comes from this one 3rd great grandparent? No, of course not. But the purposes of the DAR he is my principal ancestor. Or to put it another way, I have a Revolutionary War veteran among my ancestors.

See how easy that is?

Sure, that's about like former President Clinton saying, "It depends on what the meaning of the word is is."

It's spin, Charity. There's no two ways around it.

You know perfectly well that for all practical purposes the understanding among the membership at large in the church Joseph Smith founded has been that the "Lamanites" described in the Book of Mormon were the direct and primary ancestors of the American Indians. Whether you think that was just a miscommunication or misunderstanding on the part of the membership at large is not really at issue here.

What is at issue is the means by which the leadership of the church institutes a change in a publication that goes out worldwide to thousands of people without any announcement to membership. What would have been the harm in announcing it publicly? Why is it they are only addressing it when media reports surfaced of the change a year later?

It just isn't very up front, and one might expect a church that claims to be the Church of Jesus Christ if nothing else to do things in the light, and not in the shadows. If there has been misunderstanding on any number of fronts (limited geography theory, progenitors/DNA of Native Americans, and so on), why not address it publicly and attempt to clarify any misunderstanding so that correct doctrine, practice and theology can be taught?

[_beastie]

Charity -

Do you understand how these two statements are different?

1. New theories that are eventually accepted were normally disputed at their point of introduction.

2. Disputed theories usually win out.

Thus far, all of your defenses have been defenses of number one, when the assertion you need to defend is number 2.

[_marg]

Actually, you need to go a lot further. You asserted that disputed theories "usually" win out. To prove your assertion that they "usually" win out, you're going to have to do a lot more than you have done.

We all know that new theories that eventually turn out to be correct can be disputed at their origin. You are teaching us nothing new. What I want to know is what your evidence is for "disputed theories usually winning out."

Oh, for Pete's sake. To go through the list of scientific theories which have been replaced, and to show the resistance that occurred would be tedious reading. How about the idea that the earth was round, or the theories on physical movement (remember Rene Descartes idea on a kind of hydralic system?), theories of disease. . . .oh, get a grip. Prove it?

What you will notice Chastity is that scientific theories evolve to better fit theories of current data as new insights are gained often due to better data via improved or invented tools. A case in point is that back in J. Smith's day there were 2 primary theories floating around with regards to where the American Indians came from one being from Asia, the other from across the Atlantic /Europe. In J. Smith's day they didn't have tools to study genetic information, let alone knowledge with regards to genetics. So just as we are able to to appreciate the earth is not flat, or the earth is not the center of the universe or our solar system and we know this because of increased data and better tools, we also now know American Indians did not migrate from the Middle East.

I think this is the 3rd time I'm asking you, if you have evidence or reasoning to justify dismissal of the Out of Africa scientific theory so that you can claim American Indians ( I don't care what percentage you want to speculate on) migrated from the Middle East as per your claim in previous posts, then say what it is. What you are attempting to do is to go backwards to an outdated theory rather than move forward to a better fit theory on new data.