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

[_charity]

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.

A lightbulb just went on. Now I see the underlying weakness of your argument. Members of the Church are not The Church. That would be like saying the student body of Harvard IS Harvard. So, by this theory, every idea that Ted Kaczynski (the unibomber) puts out is what the institution of Harvard stands for? Do you care to back out of that statement?

And do you put your father's understanding and ideas as binding upon the Church and all 12 million of us members? Although your dad sounds like a great guy. And he did understand the concept of "principal" as firs importance. Howeever, he does overstep himself a little by sayhing that "most LDS" thought of it differently. He can hardly speak for "most" LDS. For one thing, the topic was not widely discussed enough for most of to know what other people thought about it. When was the last time you saw a poll in the Ensign about what we thought the meaning was?

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.

edited to add: The only change in belief or thought was if the original thought was not correct. Those who understood that "principal" meant most important, didn't need to change their belief with the change in the intro.

Your father sounds like an intelligent man. But what is it that he is teaching?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

And you have totally misread and misunderstood the word "principal." It means most important, not % of DNA in the cells.

Utter BS. Bruce McConkie, the very guy who wrote "principal," also wrote that the "dominant blood lineage" of American Indians IS Israelite. Just keep digging your hole deeper, my dear.

[_The Dude]

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.

A lightbulb just went on.

Good.

Now I see the underlying weakness of your argument. Members of the Church are not The Church. That would be like saying the student body of Harvard IS Harvard. So, by this theory, every idea that Ted Kaczynski (the unibomber) puts out is what the institution of Harvard stands for? Do you care to back out of that statement?

I swear, Charity, you seem to think you have scored a checkmate in every other post. It's hysterical.

No I don't care to back out of anything. You have not highlighted a weakness in my argument because your analogy is false. I'm not speaking of what the Church "stands for" but what most of it's members believe or have historically believed. So in your analogy I'm talking about something that would be held as true by most of the student body of Harvard, and for short-hand I'm just saying "Harvard" (or "The Church" in this case).

And do you put your father's understanding and ideas as binding upon the Church and all 12 million of us members?

No. But I think it is representative and he says it is representative. He's not some hermit under a rock, but somebody who has been a member all his life, a true blue TBM, someone who graduated from and taught at BYU, and has attended every education week that I can remember, a professional with advanced degrees, a smart guy who has held many teaching and leadership positions during his life as a member of The Church. You dismiss his perception as nothing? Wow, that was easy.

Although your dad sounds like a great guy. And he did understand the concept of "principal" as first importance.

He was trained as a lawyer and knows how to lay out a case. I think he was balanced.

When was the last time you saw a poll in the Ensign about what we thought the meaning was?

It would be nice to have a poll to discuss. Oh well, it's going to be hard to get data now when everybody is finding out about it because it is being widely discussed.

edited to add: The only change in belief or thought was if the original thought was not correct. Those who understood that "principal" meant most important, didn't need to change their belief with the change in the intro.

Maybe you are special. To most people in the church, the original thought was not correct and there has been a change.

[_charity]

No I don't care to back out of anything. You have not highlighted a weakness in my argument because your analogy is false. I'm not speaking of what the Church "stands for" but what most of it's members believe or have historically believed. So in your analogy I'm talking about something that would be held as true by most of the student body of Harvard, and for short-hand I'm just saying "Harvard" (or "The Church" in this case).

You have overplayed the introduction. I don't know that a lot of people had even read it. Or considered it. And the idea that it is being widely discussed now is overblowing things. I am on e-mail lists, participate in 4 enrichment groups through Relief Society, and do you know, the topic hasn't even been brough up on most of them. And when it has been, there is usually a big yawn. You anti's want it to be a big deal, but for all your pot stirring, it just hasn't worked out. My condolences.

edited to add: The only change in belief or thought was if the original thought was not correct. Those who understood that "principal" meant most important, didn't need to change their belief with the change in the intro.

[quote=the dude"] Maybe you are special. To most people in the church, the original thought was not correct and there has been a change.[/quote]

I am not special. Again, I think you are making unwarranted assumptions. Anecdotal evidence isn't very reliable.

[_the road to hana]

I am on e-mail lists, participate in 4 enrichment groups through Relief Society, and do you know, the topic hasn't even been brough up on most of them. And when it has been, there is usually a big yawn.

No surprise there.

Anecdotal evidence isn't very reliable.

You must be reading Bob Crockett's blog.

[Tator]

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.

Obviously it doesn’t make any difference to you. Are you willing to concede that it does make a difference to other believers?

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?

Boy, are you ever predictable.

Here was Charity’s first challenge, in response to my statement:

It clearly was a church teaching, and that teaching is changing, and you are twisting yourself into pretzels to refuse admitting it.

Charity

Call for references on this one. Please post your source, Church manual, General Conference talk, Ensign article. Something official as a Church teaching.

So I share John Sorenson’s Ensign article that clearly admits a change as far as Book of Mormon geography is concerned.

So then Charity raises the bar:

First, Dr. Sorenson is not a General Authority. Any article by a person not a General Authority is taken as educational, not doctrinal, and not even "teachings of the Church."

Second, Dr. Sorenson is talking about the "traditional interpretation." Not traditional teachings of the Church. You have not understood the difference between "the Church" and the "culture" of the Church.

Ok, now it’s not just an Ensign article, it must be written by a General Authority!

(and anyone wondering where the ‘traditional interpretation’ came from, if not from ‘traditional teachings’?)

So I once again comply to the raised bar by providing citations from Mark Peterson and Marion Romney, which state the final battle of the Book of Mormon occurred at Hill Cumorah in New York, along with the official statement of the church regarding the “extermination” of an entire nation.

So now Charity raises the bar once again.

Charity:

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?

It’s hard to believe she has done this yet again, but Charity put words in my mouth while accusing me of putting words in her mouth.

Charity accused:

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 think the problem is that you’re reading words in an imaginary thread, written by the imaginary beastie. Maybe you dream about it at night, who knows – but the fact is I never said that YOU KNOW WHERE THE FINAL BATTLE WAS. In fact, you even quoted my own words before you made this fallacious accusation. Here’s what I said, which you quoted:

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!!!"

Note the bolded words. Do they say Charity claims to know where the final battle was, and it was in NY???

I even capped the word COULD, and Charity still ignored it.

Why, no, they don’t. What a surprise. Charity put words in my mouth in order to be able to accuse me of putting words in her mouth.

Now, did I put words in Charity’s mouth by attributing “the final battle COULD have been in NY” to her?

Charity’s earlier words, in response to my assertion that the final battle did NOT take place in NY.

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.

Why, for heaven’s sake!! That sounds like Charity is saying the final battle MIGHT have been in NY!!

I’m shocked, I tell you, just shocked.

I said:

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!!)

charity protested:

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.

You know, this is beginning to actually cause me physical pain. It’s beginning to feel too much like work.

Oh my goodness! You mean your side agrees that Nephi, Mosiah, et al, wrote the Book of Mormon!!! Oh my HECK!! What church did I belong to???

ARRRGGGGGH!

I will be more explicit. On the exmormon side, varying opinions exist as to the authorship of the Book of Mormon. Some believe Joseph Smith wrote it alone, some believe there was other input, such as from Rigdon/Spalding. TBMs often use this difference as opinion as some sort of “proof” that it is not possible to explain the Book of Mormon through naturalistic means, and hence, it’s a divine translation, just as Joseph Smith claimed.

So, according to Charity’s logic, I get to claim: BELIEVERS ARE RIGID!

(insert my prediction here: Charity will now go off on a tangent about how the fact that exmormons have various theories regarding the origin of the Book of Mormon is really, really, really proof of its divinity after all, completely oblivious of the fact that by her own logic, this makes her rigid.)

I said:

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".

charity replied:

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

Hmm, I vote for door three, in which Charity seems to be oblivious to her own words.

I painstakingly cited your insults, and asked you if these insults meant you had lost the argument and was frustrated. Your reply was that you were “just revealing the flaws in my argument”.
My earlier post:

by the way, you have ignored two issues:

1 – whether or not your insults mean you’ve lost the argument

Charity replied:

1. I am merely calling attention to flaws in your argument.

Now charity can’t claim she didn’t know which insults I was referring to, because I had listed them in response to her demand that I “tone down” the arrogance. My earlier post:

Charity’s earlier statements on this thread:
Quote:
Until you get on the other side and see the condemnation you will be under if any of your family follows you out of the true Church.

Quote:
You really had to reach on that one. I was referring to genealogy as you very well know. So this little sideswipe is really dishonest, beastie. I am embarresed for you. It shows a weakness in your own belief in your argument.

Quote:
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. :(

Quote:
You must need words of shorter syllables.

Quote:
marg: You have believed lies told by individuals in whom there is no truth. They are fighting against God and you have bought into it.You ought to at least think about how wrong you have been as evidenced in the post I am responding to. And then look to see where else you have been led astray by Satan's minions.

Seriously, are you having memory problems, Charity? It’s bizarre, it’s as if the only thing that registers with you is the post in front of you – you seem to completely forget all the other posts that went before, even right on the same thread.

And no, I’m not Sorenson’s spokesperson, but he clearly believes a change is afoot. I’m sure you could set him straight in no time.

[_Pokatator]

When was the last time you saw a poll in the Ensign about what we thought the meaning was?

I have never seen a poll of any kind in the Ensign. Have you? No one in leadership cares what the membership thinks.

[_beastie]

The "principal ancestor" controversy has been discussed many times since I've been on the net. I found a couple of conversations about it from the past.

http://p079.ezboard.com/fpacumenispages ... =391.topic

On this thread, two notable apologists, Brant Gardner and Ben Cromis, both stated that they would like to see the introduction changed.

http://p079.ezboard.com/fpacumenispages ... 26&stop=33

In this thread, Daniel Peterson made the following comment:

I'll assume that you are.

I don't feel that that the term "principal ancestor" is an accurate way of describing the Lamanites' relationship to present day American Indians if it is taken to refer to literal biological descent. Whether it is appropriate in some other sense is a matter of interpretation.

EB: Does it make a difference if you define ancestor as non-blood related forerunner or predecessor, as JMS suggested?

It surely would make a difference.

EB: Is it accurate to say that the Lamanites' relationship to the present-day American Indian is much the same as the relationship of George Washington to the United States, as JMS suggested?

Possibly. I would have to meditate on that.

As for the canonical or non-canonical status of the Introduction, I didn't say that it shouldn't be canonized. I simply say that it hasn't been canonized. And, no, it isn't a revelation. And introductions are not generally canonized, even if they are factual. And it may well be in error on the point in question.

http://p079.ezboard.com/fpacumenispages ... 41&stop=51

On this thread, Daniel Peterson made this statement:

To say that some individual or group A is ancestral to some other individual or group B -- even to ALL of group B -- is NOT necessarily to say that A is the PRINCIPAL ancestor of B.

"Principal ancestors" -- the expression is not altogether clear -- represent a subset of "ancestors," just as "black cats" are a subset of "cats."

So, no, it is not correct to say that a belief that Lamanites are or may be ancestral to all Amerindians is equivalent to believing that Lamanites are the PRINCIPAL ancestors of all Amerindians. And it may not be accurate to say that the "principal ancestor" language of the Book of Mormon Introduction is largely supported by the scholars at FARMS. I don't know what the percentages would be, but I suspect that most at FARMS don't like the phrase much. I don't. However, one well-known Latter-day Saint DNA specialist has told me that, in his view, the phrase is just fine. But I didn't get a chance to hear his reasoning on the topic.

Scott Lloyd also stated:

I agree with Daniel that the expression "principal" is not altogether clear, in that it could be applied in a number of senses and is thus ambiguous. One dictionary gives its meaning as "first in rank, authority, importance, degree, etc."

As pertaining to ancestry, it could refer to genetic preponderance, but it doesn't have to. As I have suggested, it could have a theological meaning and apply to the lineage through which the Abrahamic covenant descends, since, theologically speaking, that would be the most important or "principal" lineage.

I don't see any indication from these notable apologists that it's only idiots who don't understand a dictionary who would interpret "principal" to mean the main ancestors, numerically speaking. In fact, they seem to agree that the phrase is problematic.

[_charity]

The "principal ancestor" controversy has been discussed many times since I've been on the net. I found a couple of conversations about it from the past.

On this thread, Daniel Peterson made this statement:

To say that some individual or group A is ancestral to some other individual or group B -- even to ALL of group B -- is NOT necessarily to say that A is the PRINCIPAL ancestor of B.

"Principal ancestors" -- the expression is not altogether clear -- represent a subset of "ancestors," just as "black cats" are a subset of "cats."

So, no, it is not correct to say that a belief that Lamanites are or may be ancestral to all Amerindians is equivalent to believing that Lamanites are the PRINCIPAL ancestors of all Amerindians. And it may not be accurate to say that the "principal ancestor" language of the Book of Mormon Introduction is largely supported by the scholars at FARMS. I don't know what the percentages would be, but I suspect that most at FARMS don't like the phrase much. I don't. However, one well-known Latter-day Saint DNA specialist has told me that, in his view, the phrase is just fine. But I didn't get a chance to hear his reasoning on the topic.

Scott Lloyd also stated:

I agree with Daniel that the expression "principal" is not altogether clear, in that it could be applied in a number of senses and is thus ambiguous. One dictionary gives its meaning as "first in rank, authority, importance, degree, etc."

As pertaining to ancestry, it could refer to genetic preponderance, but it doesn't have to. As I have suggested, it could have a theological meaning and apply to the lineage through which the Abrahamic covenant descends, since, theologically speaking, that would be the most important or "principal" lineage.

I don't see any indication from these notable apologists that it's only idiots who don't understand a dictionary who would interpret "principal" to mean the main ancestors, numerically speaking. In fact, they seem to agree that the phrase is problematic.

Thanks for supporting what I have been saying.

[_ludwigm]

The "principal ancestor" controversy has been discussed many times since I've been on the net. I found a couple of conversations about it from the past.
On this thread, Daniel Peterson made this statement:

...
"Principal ancestors" -- the expression is not altogether clear -- represent a subset of "ancestors," just as "black cats" are a subset of "cats."
...
However, one well-known Latter-day Saint DNA specialist has told me that, in his view, the phrase is just fine.

Scott Lloyd also stated:

I agree with Daniel that the expression "principal" is not altogether clear, in that it could be applied in a number of senses and is thus ambiguous....
As pertaining to ancestry, it could refer to genetic preponderance, but it doesn't have to. As I have suggested, it could have a theological meaning ...

I don't see any indication from these notable apologists that it's only idiots who don't understand a dictionary who would interpret "principal" to mean the main ancestors, numerically speaking. In fact, they seem to agree that the phrase is problematic.

Thanks for supporting what I have been saying.

Apologists - Charity is a typical one - like these definitions:

"the expression "X" is not altogether clear, in that it could be applied in a number of senses"
- - (in the actual case the prophet applied it in other sense, and after 40 years we can it explain away)

"it could refer to Y, but it doesn't have to"
- - (in the actual case, it refers to Z, as the Holy spirit said to them)

"it could have a theological meaning"
- - (which is unknown until we have a new revelation, or proclamation, or TV interview which reverses the previous meaning)

And we, "satan's minions" like the expressions:
"one well-known Latter-day Saint DNA specialist"
- - ( I know who he is, his real name is noname.