Dr. Peterson, why do you think the Church chose to omit ...

[_SUAS]

No REally ..I thought the PHD..Dr. Peterson was supposed to answer this..Sorry that I asked if you could see the BYU on the Mountain still...When I went to Utah I did not go to Provo.

[_collegeterrace]

Mms, my guess is that they wished to deemphasize those ideas presented in the omitted portions of the text. The conclusion that there were only those two groups and that the remnants of the Nephite people became solely today's Native Americans, would seem both untenable and embarrassing nowadays.

I think your guess is spot on, Moksha.

I also think omitting it in the way the church did was nothing short of dishonest.

KA

I can hear the defenders 15 years from now, "Joseph Smith NEVER said anything about the Indians in the Wentworth letter! You all are lying anti-mormons!"

[_collegeterrace]

No REally ..I thought the PHD..Dr. Peterson was supposed to answer this..Sorry that I asked if you could see the BYU on the Mountain still...When I went to Utah I did not go to Provo.

Shut the “F” up.

[_SUAS]

But I flew on JETBLUE...From Dulles..to SLC..

[_collegeterrace]

...only the following portion of the Wentworth Letter in Chapter 38 of the Joseph Smith Priesthood/Relief Society Manual? I know this has been brought up before, but I am interested in your take on why this was omitted and whether you think it should have been. After all, Joseph Smith felt every bit of the letter was important, which is why he requested that no portion be omitted in its publication and now his own Church is doing the omitting. Why?

Here is the omitted portion:

....The remnant are the Indians
that now inhabit this country.

Odd that they omitted that but not an earlier paragraph:

“I was also informed concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this country and shown who they were, and from whence they came; a brief sketch of their origin, progress, civilization, laws, governments, of their righteousness and iniquity, and the blessings of God being finally withdrawn from them as a people..

... the aboriginal inhabitants of this country, not continent, not americas, not land, but the defining term of country, meaning the land of the then USofA.

[_bcspace]

Likely has something to do with the defintion of LDS doctrine found in my siggy.

[_moksha]

Likely has something to do with the defintion of LDS doctrine found in my siggy.

I think bcspace is absolutely right:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church.

Can there be any fault given to changing directions in the quest to seek the truth?

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Likely has something to do with the defintion of LDS doctrine found in my siggy.

True. The Current prophet has the keys of authority to update the Wentworth letter. But based on the true definition of LDS doctrine found in your siggy, can we now trust that this is the one and only true version of the Wentworth letter, or is it possible that a future prophet, through continuing revelation, will update it in the future?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I would be interested to hear from someon like DCP if the LGT is becoming the consensus belief within the church leadership.

I suspect it's on its way.

I think this Chapter 38 shows that the LGT is here to stay. Poor Joseph. I wonder if he would even recognize the Church anymore.

[_mms]

Likely has something to do with the defintion of LDS doctrine found in my siggy.

I think bcspace is absolutely right:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church.

Can there be any fault given to changing directions in the quest to seek the truth?

Yes, I think there can be fault given when the original "direction" was claimed to have come directly from God through his "mouthpiece" and to be "truth" (no need to further seek truth on that issue, as the truth was given by God through his earthly mouthpiece). Why would God "change directions" (meaning change the location of Book of Mormon peoples and events) if he had given the "truth" the first time through his earthly "mouthpiece"? And why is it that scientific research motivates God to change one "truth" to a new and different "truth"? Are these not valid questions considering the authority by which Joseph Smith claimed to speak (and by which modern prophets claim to speak, but fail to speak choosing to turn the issues over to amateur apologists)?