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

[_beastie]

from Charity's link:

It might be suggested that another flower is represented here, but the large, gently domed seed head shown is not characteristic of the small-centered lotus flower (Nelumbo sp.) or the water lily (Nymphaea), and the lotus blossoms have been sculpted in a shape quite different from the sunflower.

How odd that he doesn't mention that the flower may actually be calendula. It seems to me that would be the first possibility to come to mind.

http://www.drmorrisonsherbalremedies.co ... -inula.jpg



This is a good example of someone seeing, in ancient art, what they want to see.

I do want to emphasize that I don't think it impossible that trans-oceanic contact occurred prior to Columbus. But it is hardly "indisputable", and this is what I am trying to demonstrate. The theory is still hotly disputed, and viewed as a fringe theory by most scholars in the field.


The calendula

[_harmony]

The PR department doesn't run the Church.

Now this is a really profound statement. Really. Of course the PR department doesn't run the church. DUH. No one implied that it does. However, the PR department is directed by our highest authorities and those leaders have been quite diligent in their endeavors to make sure the church is only shown in a positive light.To that end, the PR department does their job really well. Pres Hinckley has spent his entire career trying to keep the church out of the kind of trouble that plagued it in the beginning. For most part, he's succeeded (granted, the Hofmann debacle was a mess, and the Lafferty brothers didn't help any either). They've sidestepped some nastiness (with the Olympic scandel, the FLDS mess, and some of the lawsuits), but for many Americans, the LDS church is moving into the mainstream and out of the "kooky" realm.

They missed the mark by a fair bit on this one though. Instead of looking like they were simply correcting a past mistake, it looks like they tried to hide something.

[_marg]

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.

How can you comment on the importance of changing the wording when you acknowledge you don't know why they did it.

I can tell you why they did it, Charity. It is because both claims whether it is 1) Lamanites(read Middle eastern ancestry) are principal ancestors of present day American Indians or 2 Lamanites (read Middle Eastern ancestry) are some of the ancestors of present day American Indians have no basis of evidence to support the claims. The first runs into direct conflict with scientific evidence, as I've been explaining to you in previous posts. The principal ancestors is now known be Asian before any American Indians came to the American continent. And the church is fully aware it is running up against new science in its claim. So what it is doing is weasling out of its old position on this, and downgrading its claim to speak only for a minute fraction of Am. Indians by saying Lamanites are only some of the ancestors of American Indians. Even though there is no evidence at all for this, the church argues that lack of evidence is irrelevant because maybe, just maybe...all the evidence was diluted out of existence. You see, Charity it can create apologies for lack of evidence on a small insignificant ancestry claim for Am. Indians but it can not account for lack of evidence on a claim representative of the majority of Am. Indians. Statistically it doesn't wash/make sense. That is why the Church changed the wording, in essence to cover its ass with regards to its lies. And in my world I consider lies perpetrated on others for personal gain at the expense of others "unethical". Now I guess the Church can justify its actions as being ethical, because they wouldn't want people it has lied to all these years, who have invested money, time, emotions, social involvement to be devastated if they were to clue in that all their investment has been put into a scam. That the Church was founded upon lies.

[_charity]

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.

Sorry, I thought I was having a rational discussion. Rational people don't need to bring flying spaghetti monsters into the discussion. I will try to remember that next time and dumb down my posts. :(

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.

Let's take dowsing, since you brought it up. This shows the fundamental weakness of your mindset. If something not been PROVEN, then you believe it has been DISPROVEN. Dowsing has not been "debunked." The ultimate statement that can be made about dowsing right now is "The efficacy of dowsing has not been proven scientifically." That is not saying that is has been disproven. You remind me a student I had in a class when the O.J. jury came back with the "not guily" verdict. She got that ditzy look on her face. "Golly gee, I thought he did it, but he really didn't. Wow."

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.

Disputed does not mean disproven. Please, use language precisely. The detailed description does not match the calendula, either. And do we expect the Indologists to just readily abandon their position without a defense.

[_charity]

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.

Beastie, I am surprised that since you seem to keep track of every little thing (the dowsing remark) that you weren't tracking my ideas about the introduction to the Book of Mormon. On a thread well before the introduction was changed, I posted about the meaning of the word "principal."

The meaning of the introduction did not change. Principal never meant most, but meant most important. That is still the same. And saying "among" reaffirms that Native Americans have Lehi on their pedigree chart. Now, if the introduction had said "a few of the Native Americans have. . . ." that would have been a change in doctrine.

I really can't see how you bring the hemispheric model into the discussion. The introduction was not changed to say anything about meso-American natives. Or to limit who is said to have Israelite ancestors.

You must need words of shorter syllables.

[_charity]

Pres Hinckley has spent his entire career trying to keep the church out of the kind of trouble that plagued it in the beginning.

Yeah, right. It doesn't matter that he has lead the Church into an unprecedented era of temple building, established the Perpectual Education Fund, overseen the major changes in the Church Educational System, increased humanitarian efforts that now surpasses any other Christian denomination, with perhaps the exception of the Catholic Church, and significanlty impacted the lives of millions of Church members on every continent.

They missed the mark by a fair bit on this one though. Instead of looking like they were simply correcting a past mistake, it looks like they tried to hide something.

You can't cover up a mistake if there wasn't a mistake to begin with. But I am glad to see that the anti-Mormon crowd has fallen on such hard times that it is left picking at little tiny things and trying to blow up an argument. Not very impressive, though.

[_The Nehor]

As another active believing LDS member I would like to point out that nowhere in my family or any family that I've associated with did Thanksgiving have mythic significance due to Lamanites being involved. We give thanks and perform the ritual sacrifice of the turkey, deep-fry it, and feast on it's flesh.

I haven't seriously associated it with pilgrim-indian relations since I was in grade school and we did arts and crafts of it. The rest I learned in Charlie Brown's Christmas special. Having just come home from Church I can say while there was much discussion of family gatherings and friendly debates on the relative merits of cooking birds in a certain way there was nothing else.

[_beastie]

I’m going to review what brought on charity’s latest “display” for clarity.


Chonguey stated:

Modern science has all but shown that the above assumption is utterly false. The natives in America had no relation to the mythology of the Judeo-Christian ethic, having sub-divided themselves from their Eurasian ancestors via the land bridge thousands of years before biblical mythology had even got started.

You asserted:

This is absolute rubbish. The Book of Mormon never says that there weren't others who were here or what their origins were. And we know there were migrations. You should read the diffusionist theories, which are well accepted now. I have seen a picture of a pineapple carved in the ornate stone work of a temple in India before the birth of Christ. And you do know about the tobacco found in the mummies in Egypt? Catch up, please before you start spouting out about what "modern science" has shown.

Having some familiarity with the diffusionist theories, and knowing that these theories, while having their strong advocates, are hardly “well accepted now”, I asked for evidence of your assertion:

Beastie

CRF - I particularly want to see evidence that these findings are widely accepted among the experts. I'm familiar with some examples such as these that diffusionists offer as evidence of their theory, but whenever I've delved into the details, I discovered that other experts reject the interpretation of the diffusionists. An example is that a couple of "Indologists" claim that maize is depicted in ancient sculptures, while other experts claim that these individuals have erred due to their lack of familiarity with the ancient iconography of the period, and that what they are calling "maize" is really a mythical pearl-fruit (muktaphala). This is an example of what I would consider "questionable" evidence. I know this occurs quite frequently within the Book of Mormon debate, as well, and people who are unfamiliar with Mesoamerican iconography can see "elephants" when macaws or tapirs are being represented.

by the way, I don't reject the diffusionist theory out-of-hand, by the way, I think it's possible. I just want to see how solid your evidence really is.

You responded: by quoting a FARMs article, and I once again asked:

In quoting your FARMS article, you're telling me something I already know, which is that a handful of scholars with various areas of expertise believe there is evidence for trans-oceanic influence. What I want to know is if their conclusions are widely accepted across their fields. For example, Johannessen is one that has been criticized for drawing conclusions about ancient Indian art without fully understanding that art, and hence, calling the mythological pearl fruit "maize" because that's what it looked like to his less trained eye. How accepted have these theories been, or are they still on the fringe of the science?

If your only source is a FARMs article, you're not going to be able to answer my question, and that's ok, I'm just asking.

You also asserted that:

Non-LDS scholars have said the the Sorenson-Johannsen material is indisputable.

And I responded:

Well, you've lost your case right there, because it is definitely disputable, and has been disputed by Indologists. One obvious problem with the theory that muktaphala is really maize is that there should be botanical evidence of the maize, and there isn't.

It's not hard to find evidence showing that this is a disputed claim:

http://www.bio.net/bionet/hypermail/bio ... 27604.html

Someone is overstating their case, and you are repeating what they've asserted without taking the time to dig deeper yourself.

You then made the statement that caused me to drop my jaw:

Disputed theories eventually usually win out. Think about the geocentrists vs heliocentrists. Or how about the guys who believed for a lot of years that the dinosaurs gradually declined and went extinct, when we all know now that it was over a period of just a few years. The old hidebound theories give away when new discovered show them to be wrong. This is obviously the case here.

I asked you to support your assertion that “disputed theories eventually usually win out.” I specifically asked you to consider the difference between these two statements:

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.

You have consistently conflated these two statements, and each piece of “evidence” you gave to support your assertion that “disputed theories eventually usually win out.” In addition to this, when I provided evidence that the Maize/India theory is extremely controversial, hotly disputed, and only accepted by a few scholars, you then asserted that:

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

Please tell me that you are capable of recognizing that the assertions you have culled from the FARMS articles are not offering “indisputable evidence”. It is not indisputable that maize existed in ancient India when the only evidence are some sculptures that a few people have decided portray maize. Other equally (or more) qualified experts in the subject insist these are portrayals of the mythical pearl fruit from the Sanskrit. In addition, there is no botanical or linguistic evidence supporting the existence of maize. Please, please tell me that I have not been wasting my time with someone who can read those words in black and white and then still insist that the evidence is still “indisputable” and then claims she’ll have to “dumb down” her posts for me.

Then, to try to demonstrate that disputed theories do not, in fact, usually win out, I gave a long list of disputed theories that have not “won out” and scientists feel comfortable calling pseudoscience and claim the theories have been debunked.

In response, you claim that:

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.

All I can say is: What the Heck????!!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!

So I patiently tried to respond again:

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.

Amazingly, this is your response:

Sorry, I thought I was having a rational discussion. Rational people don't need to bring flying spaghetti monsters into the discussion. I will try to remember that next time and dumb down my posts. :(

What in the name of all that is sane are you talking about???? Are you so incapable of admitting either your original assertion that “disputed theories usually win out” was incorrect, or that you were not clear in what you were trying to say, and you really wanted to say “theories that are proven to be correct were often disputed when they were first introduced”????

Let's take dowsing, since you brought it up. This shows the fundamental weakness of your mindset. If something not been PROVEN, then you believe it has been DISPROVEN. Dowsing has not been "debunked." The ultimate statement that can be made about dowsing right now is "The efficacy of dowsing has not been proven scientifically." That is not saying that is has been disproven. You remind me a student I had in a class when the O.J. jury came back with the "not guily" verdict. She got that ditzy look on her face. "Golly gee, I thought he did it, but he really didn't. Wow."

Sigh.

[_beastie]

Beastie, I am surprised that since you seem to keep track of every little thing (the dowsing remark) that you weren't tracking my ideas about the introduction to the Book of Mormon. On a thread well before the introduction was changed, I posted about the meaning of the word "principal."

The meaning of the introduction did not change. Principal never meant most, but meant most important. That is still the same. And saying "among" reaffirms that Native Americans have Lehi on their pedigree chart. Now, if the introduction had said "a few of the Native Americans have. . . ." that would have been a change in doctrine.

I really can't see how you bring the hemispheric model into the discussion. The introduction was not changed to say anything about meso-American natives. Or to limit who is said to have Israelite ancestors.

You must need words of shorter syllables.

Unbelievable. It never fails, just when I think I have seen everything, Charity asserts she will have to "dumb down" her posts for me and use "shorter syllables" (and what the heck are "words of shorter syllables"? A syllable is a phonological unit.)

The hemispheric model indicates that the descendants of Lehi spread throughout the entire continent, more or less. In other words, the events of the Book of Mormon took place all over North and South America. This precludes the idea of a limited population contained within a very small geographical area, such as Mesoamerica, who were immediately subsumed within a larger population. This hemispheric models is predicated upon the idea of Lehi's descendants being the primary inhabitants of these continents, and, in fact, usually includes the idea that they were the sole inhabitants as well.

Joseph Smith and the vast majority of LDS prophets did NOT believe in the "limited geography theory". You are insisting that the introduction always reflected an intent coherent with the LGT, and that is just plain nonsense. Given how you believe prophets and leaders are not infallible, I have no idea why you can't admit they are changing a teaching about the Book of Mormon. For heaven's sake, back on FAIR, numerous high profile apologists conceded that the introduction was misleading and needed to be changed. Get on board with your leaders (and by leaders, I mean the high profile apologists, of course), for heaven's sake, and quit embarrassing yourself with talk of using "words with shorter syllables".

[_marg]

The meaning of the introduction did not change. Principal never meant most, but meant most important. That is still the same.

Hogwash..if "principal" refers to importance rather than numbers or percentages of ancestral people then carry this reasoning forward to the new wording, let's examine what we get.


Lamanites are some of the ancestory of American Indians.

By your reasoning we get... Lamanites [are only minimally significant, minimally important] as ancestors to American Indians. If that's the case why is this point even in the Introduction?