Top Ten Happenings in Mopologetics, 2007

[_Mister Scratch]

LDS Apologists tried to counter by launching a smear campaign against Ritner in which it was alleged that Ritner had made sexual pass at Gee, and had then walked off the committee in order to "save face."

What the hell?

Hmm.... Perhaps I should re-phrase a bit. I have always been under the impression that this was, in essence what DCP and Gee were insinuating---i.e., that Ritner engaged in "impropriety," and was thus booted off the committee. There is an old thread here on MDB in which Dr. Shades clarifies that the homosexual thing was actually a separate rumor, but my impression is that DCP and Gee were more than happy to allow people to go on believing the worst.... Obviously, the Mopologists are savvy enough to know that insinuations and hints and "dark things" are far more effective than flat out bogus accusations. Thus, it's far easier, and far better for DCP to say, "I don't trust Mike Quinn's writings," than for DCP to actually cite anything specific.

[_TAK]

Seems to me that the list needs to include that factoid that the Morg has begun to throw additional dead saints under the bus for their role in MMM in a lame attempt at distancing BY from the "alleged massacre".

[_dartagnan]

The Ritner being gay rumor was started on the FAIR e-list a few years ago. I mentioned it on ZLMB to Brent shortly afterwards, but it had nothing to do with sexual advances towards Gee.

[_Mister Scratch]

The Ritner being gay rumor was started on the FAIR e-list a few years ago. I mentioned it on ZLMB to Brent shortly afterwards, but it had nothing to do with sexual advances towards Gee.

Okay, I see. Certainly, I wasn't the only one to conflate these two separate rumors, however, and I'm unaware of DCP and/or Gee doing anything to dispel this conflation. Probably they were yukking it up and rubbing their hands together with glee at the prospect of smearing yet another unsympathetic scholar. We have seen this time and time again, with Quinn, with Southerton, with Murphy, and Lord knows how many others.

[_Imwashingmypirate]

1. The Book of Mormon Gets Revised (Again)

I had a look into this and the chance is so minute that I could not find what it was that had changed. Perhaps you could spell it out to me. Also will the church change the doctrin to suit this change? And you say "again" what was the previous change?

[_Maxrep]

1. The Book of Mormon Gets Revised (Again)

I had a look into this and the chance is so minute that I could not find what it was that had changed. Perhaps you could spell it out to me. Also will the church change the doctrin to suit this change? And you say "again" what was the previous change?

I believe the previous change was the phrase "White and delightsome", which was changed in 1981 to read, "Pure and delightsome". This came about possibly from SWK's statements, and the churchs' general belief, that American Indians(Lamanites) would become white in skin color as they accepted the gospel. Since the Lamanites were not turning white after embracing Mormonism, the term "Pure" seemed less problematic.

[_Mister Scratch]

1. The Book of Mormon Gets Revised (Again)

I had a look into this and the chance is so minute that I could not find what it was that had changed. Perhaps you could spell it out to me.

There have already been multiple threads devoted to this, but the gist of it is this: prior to the change, the Church taught that American Indians are/were the descendants of Book of Mormon peoples. But, of course, there is zero DNA evidence to back this up. Now the Book of Mormon intro has been changed in order to qualify the old teaching. Instead of the Indians being descendants of Book of Mormon peoples, they are (maybe) "among" the descendants of the Book of Mormon peoples. The new intro acknowledges that most, if not all, Native Americans are not actually descended from the Lamanites.

Also will the church change the doctrin to suit this change?

Yes, it will. There has been a tactical retreat on this issue, led by LDS apologists, which has been ongoing for years. This is merely the final raising of the white flag.

And you say "again" what was the previous change?

There have been hundreds of emendations and changes to the text of the Book of Mormon. Perhaps the last big one occurred in the early 1980s, when the phrase "white and delightsome" was changed to "pure and delightsome"---a change which seems to have stemmed from the Church's embarrassment about its long-standing institutional racism. The priesthood ban had been lifted only a few years prior, and this change to the Book of Mormon was kind of like "icing on the cake"---i.e., one more bit of evidence that the Church was trying to distance itself from its racist past.

[_Mister Scratch]

I had apparently said that DCP was "quite possibly pathologically sick" as a result of my disgust over the Mopologists' behavior.

You didn't "apparently" say it, Scratch, you said it.

I'm also glad that you finally admit that I don't "flip flop". I made one switch, and that's when I went from being an Internet critic, to a defender. And there will be no further change, of that you and others can rest absoutely and totally assured. (And DCP's opinion will have no bearing whatsoever, in case you're wondering.)

You *do* flip-flop, Ray, and in more ways than one. For example, your temper flares in and out: sometimes you're calm, other times you are totally going ballistic. Further, I think it is worthwhile to mention that you at one time maintained exactly the same position in relation to the Church: i.e., that you would always hate it, and would always go about attacking LDS apologists, and that you would *NEVER* change. But, hey, I guess that's what absolutism will do to a person. It's a real pity that you've allowed yourself to get so bent out of shape over this.

[_Imwashingmypirate]

Then this is evidence in itself that the Book of Mormon is false. I say this because if Joseph Smith was truely inspired by an all knowing god, then by all means there ought to be no reason whatsoever to change scripture, likewise there should be no reason to change church doctrin for God knows what is to come. I don't think god is the type of god that is the way religion portay it.

[_Mister Scratch]

Then this is evidence in itself that the Book of Mormon is false. I say this because if Joseph Smith was truly inspired by an all knowing god, then by all means there ought to be no reason whatsoever to change scripture, likewise there should be no reason to change church doctrin for God knows what is to come. I don't think god is the type of god that is the way religion portay it.

You make some good points, Pirate. I anticipate a day when the Church eventually either loosens or abandons the claim that the Book of Mormon is an actual, real history, and instead treats it in a more allegorical way.

by the way: if you hunt around on the web a bit, I'm sure you can find sites that fully document all the various changes and emendations which have been made to the Book of Mormon over the years. Or you can find stuff dealing with the peculiar fact that passages from the Bible re-appear verbatim in the Book of Mormon, almost as if the Prophet Joseph simply copied from one text to the other.