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

[_charity]

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?

Because it is no big deal. Just like when the Church changed the logo of the Church. Or when it changed from Latter-Day Saints, to Latter-day Saints. Yawn.

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.

And how many shooters do you think there were on the grassy knoll? Conspiricists make me laugh.

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?

There has been no incorrect doctine, practice of theology taught. There is nothing to correct. Where the city of Zarahemla was located is irrelevant to any doctrine, practice or theology. If that is your concern, you may now move on.

[_beastie]

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

How in the world can the evidence in this case be "indisputable" when there is no botanical or linguistic evidence supporting the existence of maize in India, and Indologists insist that the "maize" are examples of the mythical fruit of pearls mentioned in the sacred script?

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?

Early polygamy is the best example of how bloodlines matter in Mormon theology.

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.

PoGP, Abraham 3

22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;

23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.

Are you saying that these verses describe the entire body of the Saints???

Why in the world do you imagine that BY said it was accepted for a woman to leave her husband for a man with a higher calling?

"There was another way - in which a woman could leave a man - if the woman preferred - another man in higher authority and he is willing to take her. And her husband gives her up - there is no bill of divorce required in the case it is right in the sight of God." (Brigham Young, October 8th, 1861, Beck's Note Book Vol. 1.)

Why do you imagine that when women left their husbands to marry Brigham Young, their children were also sealed to the new husband?

[_beastie]

beastie wrote:
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?

You have been arguing that the introduction to the Book of Mormon always meant your interpretation of "principal", hence, nothing has changed.

Reality is that the vast majority of LDS leaders, from Joseph Smith onward, have believed in the hemispheric model of the Book of Mormon and it is logical that the introduction would reflect that belief.

[_beastie]

Charity,

Just to give you an idea of how ridiculous your assertion is that most disputed theories eventually “win out”, and people only oppose them because they are set in their ways, here are some disputed theories that have never, and will never, “win out”. These are just a few among too many to count.

1. applied kinesiology
2. astrology
3. young earth theory
4. flood geology
5. modern geocentrism
6. crop circles
7. crystal healing
8. ancient astronauts
9. dianetics
10. Dogon people and Sirius B
11. channeling
12. dowsing
13. séances
14. ESP
15. psychokinesis
16. perpetual motion

Etc, etc. etc –
More found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ps ... c_theories

It stuns me that you actually seem to believe that most disputed theories win out in the end. But it certainly explains some of your stances.

[_the road to hana]

Because it is no big deal. the Church changed the logo of the Church. Or when it changed from Latter-Day Saints, to Latter-day Saints. Yawn.

Do you know for a fact that it's "no big deal?" Were you privy to the meetings discussing it?

There has been no incorrect doctine, practice of theology taught. There is nothing to correct.

Then why did they?

Charity, at what point would you consider a change significant, and a lack of announcement from church leadership alarming? Never? Ever? You give the impression of being the sort of person who'd defend the indefensible and spin into as many pretzel knots as possible to do so. That can to the outside observer be either comical or sad, but to your own person it can be extremely dangerous.

[_charity]

[quote="beastie"]

Your list is impressive, beastie. Of course, I was talking about legitimate theories which have supplanted theories long held, which would not hold up under discovery. But then I suspect you know that. Your own source is "pseudo-scientific" theories. I was not talking about them. So please don't try to derail the thread.

Now about how maize is disputed. Did you not come across the informaton about the sunflower in India? You can read about it here. From a non-LDS scholar.

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... &chapid=98

[_Pokatator]

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

Charity, you just described yourself and almost all Mormons.

[_charity]

Because it is no big deal. the Church changed the logo of the Church. Or when it changed from Latter-Day Saints, to Latter-day Saints. Yawn.

Do you know for a fact that it's "no big deal?" Were you privy to the meetings discussing it?

The PR department doesn't run the Church. I guess you skipped over the really big things. That is pretty common. If you think something has the possiblity of being critical, then try to make people believe it is of major importance. Let's see, have you checked out whether the General Authorities wear black or brown shoes? And what about their tie color?

There has been no incorrect doctine, practice of theology taught. There is nothing to correct.

Then why did they?

Charity, at what point would you consider a change significant, and a lack of announcement from church leadership alarming? Never? Ever? You give the impression of being the sort of person who'd defend the indefensible and spin into as many pretzel knots as possible to do so. That can to the outside observer be either comical or sad, but to your own person it can be extremely dangerous.

I don't know why they did. There wasn't any change in doctrine when they changed the logo of the Church. Somebody thought it would be better. These are shrugable events.

What would I think was a significant change in doctrine?

if the change in the intro had been "only a few Native Americans are descended from the Lamanites"
that tithing was now to be 15% or that we weren't supposed to pay tithing any more
that women were to be ordained to the priesthood, be bishops, etc.
if the Book of Mormon were stated to ahistorical but a good idea anyway

Those would be significant changes in doctrine.

What would I find alarming? Any of the above would call for serious study and prayer and seeking the confirmation of the Spirit. But alarming in the sense that "oh, no, maybe the Church isn't true after all?"

But remember, if you are a faithful Latter-day Saint, you believe in continuing revelation. It didn't all stop in 50 A.D. or 1844. The Heavens are still open, and God still speaks to man.

[_beastie]

Your list is impressive, beastie. Of course, I was talking about legitimate theories which have supplanted theories long held, which would not hold up under discovery. But then I suspect you know that. Your own source is "pseudo-scientific" theories. I was not talking about them. So please don't try to derail the thread.

You said "disputed theories usually win out." You said this in reference to the theory that maize was in India. This is a very disputed assertion, and it certainly has not supplanted the theory long held.

Now you are claiming what you really meant is that "legitimate theories which have supplanted theories long held" normally win out.

I don't know which is worse, actually - thinking that "disputed theories usually win out" or creating this bit of logic:

"Legitimate theories which have supplanted theories long held usually win out."

In other words, you're saying theories that have won out usually win out.

And of course theories that have been shown to be bunk are often referred to as pseudoscience. Why, you even believe in one of them on the list - dowsing. So don't hide behind that term and pretend we're talking about something fundamentally different.

Now about how maize is disputed. Did you not come across the informaton about the sunflower in India? You can read about it here. From a non-LDS scholar.

Did you happen to notice this is the same author who has insisted that the mythical pearl fruit from the sanskrit is really maize? In other words, you're referring to the same source of authority who is already disputed.

[_beastie]

On this thread Charity has provided an excellent, live demonstration of Eric Hoffer's summary of a True Believer:

It is the true believers ability to “shut his eyes and stop his ears” to facts that do not deserve to be either seen or heard which is the source of his unequaled fortitude and constancy. He cannot be frightened by danger nor disheartened by obstacles nor baffled by contradictions because he denies their existence. Strength of faith, as Bergson pointed out, manifests itself not in moving mountains but in not seeing mountains to move. And it is the certitude of his infallible doctrine that renders the true believer impervious to the uncertainties, surprises and the unpleasant realities of the world around him.

Charity can't even bring herself to admit that changing the introduction changed a former teaching in Mormonism. It doesn't matter that Joseph Smith or the vast majority of other prophets believed in the hemispheric model, and hence, would approve of an introduction that reflected that belief. The introduction always meant what Charity believes it now to mean, because it must mean what she now believes it to mean.