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

[_charity]

Once you started telling me I was being influenced by "satan's minions" I realized I was conversing with a nut-case. I just hope you aren't dangerous.

I am only a nut job if I am wrong.

Really? As a psychologist by training do you actually believe that?

In psychology, reality is everything. If Satan is real, and you really are influenced by him (whether you know it or not) then I am not a nut job.

[_charity]

OK Charity, to help us figure out what you are thinking....

Do you think there was a great and final battle with millions of Nephites and Lamanites around NY?

Probably not. But it isn't proven one way or the other. So it doesn't matter to me which way is proven. Eventually.

Do you go with the two Cumorahs theory? Or do you think there was just one?

I think probably the Cumorah of the Big Battle was Maize Hill.

How many Nephites/Lamanites do you think existed at the height of their "civilization"?

I don't know. I am not a demographer.

Do you think the majority of those we consider Native Americans today, are biological descendants of Lamanites?

I believe that the majority of those we consider Native Americans today, have a few pedigree slots out of millions, filled by Lehites. I also think that the majority of those pedigree slots are filled with people with Asian DNA. You might want to check out the thread I started on "Who are Indians?"


~dancer~[/quote]

[_charity]

You really just don't adhere to LGT. You are bending certain things to accommodate pesky issues like DNA, but, obviously, in the end you think that the main final war may really have been in NY!!!

Au contraire. I just told truth dancer I think probably the main final war was at Maize Hill.

So either you don't really adhere to LGT and only agree with apologists on FAIR/MAD because they are persuasive at the moment, or you really don't understand LGT. There is no way, under LGT, that the final battle between Nephites and lamanites took place in NY.

I am a great fan of Sorenson. I also think Poulsen is highly persuasive. But even Sorenson says he is only suggesting a theory. But I would not stake my life on it. You anti's are so rigid. Whew.

I would suggest you stop defending something you really don't believe in.

I will tell you what I believe in. The Book of Mormon as a historic document. I am not highly invested in where those real events took place. It is just interesting to discuss it.

[_beastie]

This thread has been a hoot.

Charity's main argument on this thread has been that the wording change of the Book of Mormon doesn't indicate a change in church teachings. It doesn't matter that Joseph Smith and almost every other church leaders held to the hemispheric model. The church didn't "teach" the hemispheric model or anything inconsistent with LGT, so nothing has changed. The intro was changed only to accommodate idiots who don't know what the word "principal" means.

So in accordance with her CRF, I provided a couple of general conference talks that contained teachings incompatible with LGT. The entire reason I provided those citations was to demonstrate that church leaders have, indeed, in the past taught ideas incompatible with LGT, and hence, the wording change of the intro indicates a change in church teaching. In response to thsee citations, charity suddenly switches her argument from "there is no change" to "the final battle COULD have been in NY!!!"

Now, the fact that I point out Charity's inconsistency means "anti's are rigid"!! (coming from the side who acts like the fact that different theories exist as to the authorship of the Book of Mormon is somehow evidence that it's true!!) I have to remember this is the lady who thinks that telling me I need "words of one syllable" and I need "dumb down posts" and am one of "satan's minions" is a way to demonstrate "flaws in my argument".

What's particularly funny about this whole debacle is that the high profile apologists most likely wouldn't have a problem admitting that the wording change indicates a change in church teaching. John Sorenson, as seen in the article I cited from him earlier, would freely admit it.

[_truth dancer]

I believe that the majority of those we consider Native Americans today, have a few pedigree slots out of millions, filled by Lehites. I also think that the majority of those pedigree slots are filled with people with Asian DNA. You might want to check out the thread I started on "Who are Indians?"

Hi Charity... yes I checked out your thread. I'm hoping you are now understanding more about DNA after reading The Dude's very helpful information.

OK, so just to be clear, you do believe the majority of Native Americans today are indeed descendants of Lehi, somewhere along the line.

Since there is no evidence for this whatsoever, and since I have never heard modern day apologists claim this, may I ask where you came up with this idea?

I also ask once again, when you assert this Lehite ancestry is the "most important" (your interpretation of principal), what do you mean? Most important how? What possible significance do the Native American's see in ancestry that is so far removed that it is virtually non-existent? How does this Lehite blood influence their lives?

~dancer~

[_Pokatator]

What's the problem between this and LGT? It's the two Cumorahs theory, of course. No battle took place on "that hill" in western New York.

And you know that how? Oh, before you say there weren't any great piles of bones, when was the last time you went through the midwest? Did you notice any big piles of buffalo bones? Estimates vary, but one observer wrote that 7.5 million buffalo were slaughtered in just a two year period, 1873-74. And that was 130 years ago, not a thousand.

I know what the LGT suggests. But you can't say for sure.

I'm wondering what happened to all those buffalo breastplates and buffalo swords?

[_charity]

This thread has been a hoot.

Charity's main argument on this thread has been that the wording change of the Book of Mormon doesn't indicate a change in church teachings. It doesn't matter that Joseph Smith and almost every other church leaders held to the hemispheric model. The church didn't "teach" the hemispheric model or anything inconsistent with LGT, so nothing has changed. The intro was changed only to accommodate idiots who don't know what the word "principal" means.

I keep saying, it doesn't matter what opinions people had about the geography. The Church has never taught the geography. You can't show me an edition of the Book of Mormon with a map in the back that pinpoints Zarahemla. And the wording change of the introduction doesn't mention LGT or hemispheric model. "Principal" or "among" doesn't make any diufference at all.

So in accordance with her CRF, I provided a couple of general conference talks that contained teachings incompatible with LGT. The entire reason I provided those citations was to demonstrate that church leaders have, indeed, in the past taught ideas incompatible with LGT, and hence, the wording change of the intro indicates a change in church teaching. In response to thsee citations, charity suddenly switches her argument from "there is no change" to "the final battle COULD have been in NY!!!"

A couple of passing references does not equal "teaching in the Church." I asked for manuals, curriculum materials, and I get a couple of sentences that beastie hangs her hat on?

But give beastie her due. She never changes her tactics. She puts words in my mouth. I have lost track of how many times it takes to repeat things to get through to her.

Beastie, please listen: I DO NOT KNOW WHERE THE FINAL BATTLE WAS. Sorry for shouting. But I didn't know if you were being dense or you are just getting deaf.

I know different people have different ideas. But it doesn't matter, except as something to have fun discussing.

Now, the fact that I point out Charity's inconsistency means "anti's are rigid"!! (coming from the side who acts like the fact that different theories exist as to the authorship of the Book of Mormon is somehow evidence that it's true!!)

Oh? I don't know of anyone on my "side" who disputes the authorship of the Book of Mormon. You know, Nephi, Mosiah, Mormon, Moroni, those guys.

I have to remember this is the lady who thinks that telling me I need "words of one syllable" and I need "dumb down posts" and am one of "satan's minions" is a way to demonstrate "flaws in my argument".

This is a good example, old girl. Unless, of course, you are misrepresenting on purpose. So, what is it? Dense or deceptive?

What's particularly funny about this whole debacle is that the high profile apologists most likely wouldn't have a problem admitting that the wording change indicates a change in church teaching. John Sorenson, as seen in the article I cited from him earlier, would freely admit it.

And now you can speak for Dr. Sorenson. Sorry, I didn't see you on his list of authorized spokemen.

[_the road to hana]

I keep saying, it doesn't matter what opinions people had about the geography. The Church has never taught the geography. You can't show me an edition of the Book of Mormon with a map in the back that pinpoints Zarahemla. And the wording change of the introduction doesn't mention LGT or hemispheric model. "Principal" or "among" doesn't make any diufference at all.

So why are you arguing about any of it with minions of Satan who think you're a nutjob?

[_The Dude]

I keep saying, it doesn't matter what opinions people had about the geography. The Church has never taught the geography. You can't show me an edition of the Book of Mormon with a map in the back that pinpoints Zarahemla. And the wording change of the introduction doesn't mention LGT or hemispheric model. "Principal" or "among" doesn't make any diufference at all.

I'm going to start saying "minimal theory" instead of LGT or hemispheric, because here we see a bunch of geographical assertions in a rebuttal to a population model, and that's misleading.

And it does matter what opinions people have about Lamanite heritage. Members of the Mormon church are "The Church", and their perceptions are changing. It's hard to pinpoint what The Church believes overall, without a Zoghbi poll or something, but the word-change is a marker for a shift in perception, belief, and teaching.



I notified my father about the article in the SLT, which we discussed here a few weeks ago. This was part of his response:

Thanks for alerting me to the article - it the first I have heard about the change!
 
I feel good about the change.  When I have read the Book of Mormon introduction (which as stated was not part of the record Joseph translated), I have struggled with the word "principal".  I have thought the word was o.k. "as is" if Elder McConkie was thinking "first in importance" ("adjective.  1 first in rank, authority, importance, degree, etc.") - since Elder McConkie was such a clear thinker, writer and speaker, this may have been the meaning he was trying to portray - we can only speculate.  But most LDS - including myself until a few years ago - probably felt the word "principal" as used in the introduction meant "primary", "major", etc. because of comments like President Kimball's (and many others').  By removing the word "principal" and saying "among" I believe the statement is less confusing, but according to the definition of "principal", it is not technically any more accurate.

Then I asked:

I'm just curious: what was it that changed your favored interpretation of the word "principal" just a few years ago? Was it external to the Book of Mormon text (like a new awareness of Native American anthropology and genetics) or was it something else?

He replied:

Answer to your last question - was it external.  As I try to think back as to what came first, the chicken or the egg, I believe the transition came about like this.  First, I had in the back of my mind questions about the Book of Mormon story intensely covering north and south America, but I basically was "lazy" on this point, listening to Sister ____'s theories [an opinionated ward member] and others.  I think the next thing were questions you raised [about DNA] - thank you.  Then I read the Introduction more thoroughly, reviewed things from FARMS, but then I found Sorenson's book on the subject which I painstakingly read, dog eared, underlined ....   So the summary would be, there were questions in the back of my mind that external input moved to the front, and which more serious studying has resulted in my current belief.  I say "current" belief, because we don't really know, the Lord has not revealed the answers and there could (and probably will) be more discoveries that will influence my current belief.

for what it's worth. I thought it was interesting to see how he dissected the influences that brought about his change in belief. Within a few years, he now believes and teaches something different than before.

[_charity]

I keep saying, it doesn't matter what opinions people had about the geography. The Church has never taught the geography. You can't show me an edition of the Book of Mormon with a map in the back that pinpoints Zarahemla. And the wording change of the introduction doesn't mention LGT or hemispheric model. "Principal" or "among" doesn't make any diufference at all.

So why are you arguing about any of it with minions of Satan who think you're a nutjob?

You have a point. You guys just aren't getting it. So I think I won't bother saying it again. See you another thread.