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

[_beastie]

This is why discussing anything with charity feels like some sort of slow mental torture. She believes there is no difference between her statement, as follows:

Thanks beastie. Like I said, I can live with the change but I wouldn't have made it just on the off chance that some idiot can't read a dictionary. Or can't understand a definition when they read it.

and the statements by the other apologists above.

What is particularly mind-numbing about this is that McConkie, the author of the introduction, and the other GAs during the approval of the introduction, all adhered to the hemispheric model - and yet the wording of the introduction, in Charity's world, could only be interpreted in an hemispheric model by "idiots who can't read a dictionary".

But remember, this is a woman who thinks telling someone they need words of one syllable, dumbed down posts, and are satan's minions constitutes "pointing out flaws in an argument".

It's no wonder they capped your posts at FAIR.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

What is particularly mind-numbing about this is that McConkie, the author of the introduction, and the other GAs during the approval of the introduction, all adhered to the hemispheric model - and yet the wording of the introduction, in Charity's world, could only be interpreted in an hemispheric model by "idiots who can't read a dictionary".

As you point out, BRM is the author of the Introduction and its use of the word "principal." And what he meant by that word could not be more clear from his description of American Indians in Mormon Doctrine: their "predominant blood lineage" is Israelite.