It appears that members of this board played a major role in exposing the change in the wording of the BoM introduction. There's no doubt that the church did not anticipate this at this particular time, but they were forced to respond. The PR machine scrambled and tried to control the damage via a story quickly run by LDS Church-owned KSL TV (See link)
The most amazing line from this story is the following:
Many Latter-day Saints already believe that the ancient peoples written about in The Book of Mormon represent only part of the inhabitants of Central America at that time. The change, in the introduction, accommodates that belief
This whole scenario put into motion by this board and the members who exposed this is simply amazing on several levels! The significance of this seemingly minor event cannot be overstated. Let's keep this rolling folks! We have a voice and people are listening and paying attention.
Stephen Scott: "Many Latter-day Saints already believe that the ancient peoples written about in The Book of Mormon represent only part of the inhabitants of Central America at that time. The change, in the introduction, accommodates that belief"
I thought it was interesting that they also stated that the leaders have been teaching something different but the scriptures were changed to accomodate what "many latter-day-saints" believe. So the I guess when the prophet spoke the thinking was not done!
When will the MC learn that any doctrinal changes are accessible continuously, via the Internet.
One word changes & the civilized world knows about it within 24 hours. Then, the PR people have
to spin a suggestion to try and undo the damage. You would think that fake Mormon documents
were still being sold to the church (for lock up in church vaults). When will the GA's learn what a
slippery slope it is, when they try to cover up (or quietly change) flawed theology, convoluted history, etc.
My apologies to everyone unfamiliar with Utah local news.
I found it an interesting contrast between ABC Channel 4 (KTVX) making a "possible" connection to DNA evidence and church owned KSL Channel 5 completely burying the lead and making no mention of a link to scientific evidence, they barely gave the story 20 seconds in the 5 o'clock hour. CBS Channel 2 had nothing to say about it.
I can't help but wonder how TBM's take that news. I guess they are so numb to this sort of thing they barely hear it at all.
Congratulations to the person who caught on to this. I can't remember who the poster was, but remember those first posts on it. (I feel like I was around when history was being made.)
It appears that members of this board played a major role in exposing the change in the wording of the BoM introduction. There's no doubt that the church did not anticipate this at this particular time, but they were forced to respond. The PR machine scrambled and tried to control the damage via a story quickly run by LDS Church-owned KSL TV (See link)
The most amazing line from this story is the following:
Many Latter-day Saints already believe that the ancient peoples written about in The Book of Mormon represent only part of the inhabitants of Central America at that time. The change, in the introduction, accommodates that belief
This whole scenario put into motion by this board and the members who exposed this is simply amazing on several levels! The significance of this seemingly minor event cannot be overstated. Let's keep this rolling folks! We have a voice and people are listening and paying attention.
Kerry Muhlestein, BYU ancient scripture assistant professor, says church members should not look at this assurprising. "As we come to look more carefully at the text of The Book of Mormon and clues in it about other people they're interacting with, I think we've come to understand that the picture may be more complex than we have assumed," says Muhlestein.
Stephen Scott: "Many Latter-day Saints already believe that the ancient peoples written about in The Book of Mormon represent only part of the inhabitants of Central America at that time. The change, in the introduction, accommodates that belief"
I thought it was interesting that they also stated that the leaders have been teaching something different but the scriptures were changed to accomodate what "many latter-day-saints" believe. So the I guess when the prophet spoke the thinking was not done!
That's exactly right. Since WHEN does scripture bend to accomodate what most people believe? Perhaps the church should be asking themselves, "Why do most people believe this?" Because the party line was so outlandish that very few people of intellect and/or dignity could continue to maintain either of those virtues concurrently with a belief in the doctrine as taught by the prophets.
Most people don't believe Home Teaching is any use, either...they should get rid of that program.
Most people don't believe they'll practice polygamy in the Celestial kingdom...so chop out that teaching, and edit Section 132.
Most people don't believe in the parts of the Word of Wisdom that deal with eating meat sparingly, and only in winter and times of famine...so just cut that out of the 89th section.
Hell, Mormons only believe the Bible to the extent it was translated correctly, and since it's SOOO hard to tell what was and was not adulterated by "wicked priests", just throw the whole damn thing out! They don't really believe most of it is relevent anyway, certainly not the Old Testament!
This is a slippery, slippery slope that the Church is foolish to go down, unless they really are prepared to become a doctrinal shadow of their former selves (which would be better for the intellectual integrity of the members, but would make them just another mediocre Christian religion with a few quirky beliefs thrown in the mix.)
I can't help but wonder how TBM's take that news. I guess they are so numb to this sort of thing they barely hear it at all.
I was picturing a TBM while I was watching the story. Right up front they said it was from the introduction to the BOM and written by an apostle. There you go. Five seconds into the story and the average TBM had enough to sweep this under the rug - well it wasn't a prophet and it wasn't the actual BOM.
Strangite:
When will the MC learn that any doctrinal changes are accessible continuously, via the Internet. One word changes & the civilized world knows about it within 24 hours. Then, the PR people have to spin a suggestion to try and undo the damage. You would think that fake Mormon documents were still being sold to the church (for lock up in church vaults). When will the GA's learn what a slippery slope it is, when they try to cover up (or quietly change) flawed theology, convoluted history, etc.
Well, 'video killed the radio star,' right? Maybe this is the beginning of the end.
Kerry Muhlestein, BYU ancient scripture assistant professor, says church members should not look at this assurprising. "As we come to look more carefully at the text of The Book of Mormon and clues in it about other people they're interacting with, I think we've come to understand that the picture may be more complex than we have assumed," says Muhlestein.
Is anyone surprised? And the assuming part....
That quote is actually VERY troubling to me. You have a quasi-authority figure, someone in whom your average Mormon would put a great deal of trust because as a BYU professor of ancient scripture, this guy should KNOW, right?
But pay attention to what he's doing...HE'S TELLING PEOPLE HOW TO THINK AND FEEL! "Don't you worry your pretty little heads over this. Those of us who do the "big thinking" in the Church have already thunk all the thoughts, and there aren't any more for you to think. Do not be surprised...because we already knew.
...we already knew...
...we already knew...
...repeat after me...
...we already knew...
Talk about playing the insidious role of the parent...
But he also tips his hand. They are working with "clues" and "assumptions." In other words, THEY DON'T KNOW, EITHER! THEY'RE GUESSING! But worse, their guesses are NOT based on research on the facts, they are based on the assumption that their beloved book is true, and so they are working entirely from the text of the very scriptures in question in an effort to prove those scriptures are true! That's the equivelent of asking the witness who just testified if they in fact told the truth. What do you EXPECT them to say? "Nope! You caught me...I was lying! You're good, you know that?" That's fundamentally the same game the apologists and spin-meisters are playing right now, and it's transparent as hell.
Any REAL researcher in any REAL academic institution would be terminated on the spot for engaging in such intellectually and academically iresponsible "research!"
The word "assume," too. Can't TBM's see that it's assuming? It's not revelation at all? I mean, come on!! They're pulling things out of their asses, they're not receiving jack shit from God!!
I can't help but wonder how TBM's take that news. I guess they are so numb to this sort of thing they barely hear it at all.
I was picturing a TBM while I was watching the story. Right up front they said it was from the introduction to the BOM and written by an apostle. There you go. Five seconds into the story and the average TBM had enough to sweep this under the rug - well it wasn't a prophet and it wasn't the actual BOM.
But, but... it was F---ing Bruce R. who wrote it. That alone means it should be canonized. ... doesn't it? Isn't he the dude that wrote Mormon Doctrine and said the Catholic Church was the great whore of the earth? Aren't the apostles considered prophets too? They all hung out in the School of Prophets when Joe was around. Why didn't God stop [was it Spencer Kimball in 1981] him from putting it in the Introduction? Besides I distinctly remember being taught in Seminary that the Introduction was considered scripture too, and that's why we spent a day studying it.
The Salt Lake valley is really dusty right now from all that vigorous sweeping under the rug.
So welcome to the machine.
Welcome my son, welcome to the machine.
What did you dream? It's alright we told you what to dream.
Unfortunately, I really don't think it is going to change anything. The church has been getting away with this kind of shit since it's creation.
I just finished re reading 1984. and was once again, shocked, mortified, and disgusted that Winston loved big brother and was actually thankful for all the mindwarping torture that allowed him too.
Unfortunately, I really don't think it is going to change anything. The church has been getting away with this kind of shit since it's creation.
I just finished re reading 1984. and was once again, shocked, mortified, and disgusted that Winston loved big brother and was actually thankful for all the mindwarping torture that allowed him too.
Sadly, I think you're right. (I'm wondering what my husband will say to this.) But, I'm hoping that for many, it will be the beginning of some critical thinking.
Assume my ass. Read the Book of Mormon itself. Read the writings of early church leaders. Read the talks of current church leaders. It's transparently obvious that the church has taught in a VERY straightforward fashion that the Book of Mormon is THE story explaining THE origins of the american indians. Church prophets have continually referred to indians in not only North and South America but also polynesia and the South Pacific as descendants of father Lehi.
The limited geography theory is a recent academic development by scholars seeing the evidence continually mount against the church's teachings about the Book of Mormon. They developed as a strategic retreat from the church's teachings and now it seems that the leadership is dropping back to prepared positions and hoping to minimize casualties.
Assume?!
Geez, it was no assumption. I was taught that from authorized church manuals, parents, teacher, professors, prophets, and apostles for my entire life. Don't insult me by telling me that I assumed it and that it was never doctrine.
Actually, this is a major problem with Mormonism and "living prophets." I remember teaching sunday school and priesthood lessons about scripture that allowed you to "assume" that a lot of stuff is scripture while at the same time not really committing to anything other than the standard works and official First Presidency statements. Conference addresses are fair game to accept as scripture and doctrines. Well, unless the church later decides to change its mind.
The most significant part of this story to me isn't so much about the change itself--It's about the dynamics that got the church to admit that the change had even occurred. In case you missed it, here's the sequence of events-- at least as I saw it unfold:
1. John Larsen posts the news of the change on this board
2. The post draws a lot of attention and discussion on this BB and spreads to others
3. John Larsen contacts Peggy Fletcher Stack of the Salt Lake Tribune
4. The Salt Lake Tribune runs an article on the change as suggested by John Larsen
5. Church owned KSL Television immediately runs a story about the change as though this whole story was the church's idea and that they were making this public announcement through their media arm KSL. In reality, it was a fast-acting response to douse the fire started by John Larsen!
6. The story is now being discussed on internet chat sites around the globe!
Remember--the change to the BoM did not just happen this week. Why then did the church suddenly decide to "announce" it through KSL yesterday?
This is the real story to me. That the spark created by one person on this board turned so quickly into a wildfire and forced the church to respond with their water cannons to put out the flames.
This has been one of the most fascinating sequences of events that I have witnessed since becoming disaffected and visiting this board. It's a case study in the power of the internet and the ability of one person to use it to affect change in the world.
The most significant part of this story to me isn't so much about the change itself--It's about the dynamics that got the church to admit that the change had even occurred. In case you missed it, here's the sequence of events-- at least as I saw it unfold:
1. John Larsen posts the news of the change on this board
2. The post draws a lot of attention and discussion on this BB and spreads to others
3. John Larsen contacts Peggy Fletcher Stack of the Salt Lake Tribune
4. The Salt Lake Tribune runs an article on the change as suggested by John Larsen
5. Church owned KSL Television immediately runs a story about the change as though this whole story was the church's idea and that they were making this public announcement through their media arm KSL. In reality, it was a fast-acting response to douse the fire started by John Larsen!
6. The story is now being discussed on internet chat sites around the globe!
Remember--the change to the BoM did not just happen this week. Why then did the church suddenly decide to "announce" it through KSL yesterday?
This is the real story to me. That the spark created by one person on this board turned so quickly into a wildfire and forced the church to respond with their water cannons to put out the flames.
This has been one of the most fascinating sequences of events that I have witnessed since becoming disaffected and visiting this board. It's a case study in the power of the internet and the ability of one person to use it to affect change in the world.
I think we are setting the agenda no doubt. Truth has a salient and forceful power of it's own. As Joseph Smith said, and I paraphrase: " truth will cut it's own path". I dont think he had this in mind though.
There is momentum building in the postmormon movement. It is not critical yet but it is fast approaching. I would not be surprised by anything I would see here from the Mormon Church. They are in a pretty bad spot. They are starting to look quite dishonest to many many people. That is not good for them obviously.
beenthere:
The word "assume," too. Can't TBM's see that it's assuming? It's not revelation at all? I mean, come on!! They're pulling things out of their asses, they're not receiving jack shit from God!!
I too am amazed at how fast this story grew. The DNA thing always bothered me from the first time I heard about it. I never read the intro to the book or Mormon (at least not closely) until I was in the MTC, and yet way before that I knew that the church taught that the American Indians came from the Lamanites. In fact, I remember learning in a class that American Indians have a legend about a white God coming down, and that this clearly is refering to when Christ came to the Americas, thus making the connection. Also, and I'll look this up, but didn't Joseph Smith himself call several people to serve missions "among the Lamanites" (meaning the American Indians) It would seem that there is much more evidence that can be provided to prove the church is lying. They just hope we don't find it. Let's keep this going and force them into a corner.
It appears that members of this board played a major role in exposing the change in the wording of the BoM introduction. There's no doubt that the church did not anticipate this at this particular time, but they were forced to respond. The PR machine scrambled and tried to control the damage via a story quickly run by LDS Church-owned KSL TV (See link)
The most amazing line from this story is the following:
Many Latter-day Saints already believe that the ancient peoples written about in The Book of Mormon represent only part of the inhabitants of Central America at that time. The change, in the introduction, accommodates that belief
This whole scenario put into motion by this board and the members who exposed this is simply amazing on several levels! The significance of this seemingly minor event cannot be overstated. Let's keep this rolling folks! We have a voice and people are listening and paying attention.
I swear I'd go nuts if I lived in Utah and had to listen to this crap on a daily basis.
The KSL report ends with, "LDS Church spokesman Mark Tuttle says the change will be included in
the next edition of The Book of Mormon that the church prints"
Anybody bother asking the LDS Church spokesman the obvious follow up question, "Why?"
or better yet,
"Do you really expect a one word change in the introduction of the 6th edition of the Random House BOM to undo 170 years worth of racist indoctrination and hate speech coming from the mouths of god's supposed PRofits, who were obviously dead wrong? How do you explain the complete lack of moral courage on display here?"
I can't wait for the AP to do a real unbiased report on this issue. Maybe they can do it the justice it deserves.
The part that I find frustrating is "they" still discount the current understanding of DNA.
What if the DNA came back and said no siberian relationship, but definitely a middle east relationship, What Would TSCC Do? They would be over it like white on rice proclaiming the wonders of science and our understanding.
Next what if one of the GA's precious children was killed on a date rather than losing their chastity and nothing but DNA evidence proved who the murderer was? That GA would be pushing to convict the person based upon the DNA and would not want to wait for further information concerning the crime to come forth, like witnesses or stuff like that.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't there a breast cancer research center in SLC that prides itself on being full of mormons because of the geneology that has been done? And doesn't cancer research rely on DNA? I have heard a couple of times in how great that work is by GAs.
Even though they don't like it they are having to come to terms with evidence that begins to tear at the fabric of the Morg. The church is really starting to look like enron, telling its shareholders all is well.
The part that I find frustrating is "they" still discount the current understanding of DNA.
What if the DNA came back and said no siberian relationship, but definitely a middle east relationship, What Would TSCC Do? They would be over it like white on rice proclaiming the wonders of science and our understanding.
Next what if one of the GA's precious children was killed on a date rather than losing their chastity and nothing but DNA evidence proved who the murderer was? That GA would be pushing to convict the person based upon the DNA and would not want to wait for further information concerning the crime to come forth, like witnesses or stuff like that.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't there a breast cancer research center in SLC that prides itself on being full of mormons because of the geneology that has been done? And doesn't cancer research rely on DNA? I have heard a couple of times in how great that work is by GAs.
Even though they don't like it they are having to come to terms with evidence that begins to tear at the fabric of the Morg. The church is really starting to look like enron, telling its shareholders all is well.
I've got to find the reference but it was either Thomas Murphy or Simon Southerton who said that the Church started a lab and its own research project to do DNA testing and they were all excited to finally prove once and for all that Joseph's Myth was right with DNA evidence.
When the results of that study started coming back just the opposite of what they expected, they quietly abandoned the project, shut the whole thing down and never published the results.
Had the results come back showing Semitic DNA in Native Americans, you can bet it would have been plastered all over the internet, the leading story on every Utard media outlet, and shouted from the rooftops, proving just how unethical these bastards really are and how desperate they are to quickly bury or obfuscate any information that might shed light on the fact that Joseph's Myth was just a really ignorant 19th Century bogus, racist myth.
What? The American Indians aren't lamanites. Now hold on...
DC 28:8 clearly says that somebody is going on a mission to the lamanites. The next verse says Zion is going to be built in the borders by the lamanites. Am I just ASSUMING that this refers to the American Indians that were then near Missouri?
Also...here, that infallable man who wrote Miracle Of Forgiveness, Spencer W Kimball, has an official looking "First Presidency Message" in the Ensign all about how Native Americans are lamanites. If it's a first Presidency message then I can safely ASSUME he's speaking as the prophet right? Not as the old pervert who wrote Miracle of Forgiveness?
And here, Gene R Cook talks about being in South American among the lamanites.
This little gem, also published in the Ensign, is about how the church was helping some lamanites of latin american descent deal with the guilt and other problems they had since they were descendants of the wicked nation in the Book of Mormon...oh guilt and the church...
In fairness, I did come across one article that specifically states that American Indians come from various ancestory of the old world. Though it does admit that the word lamanite is often used to refer to all the American Indians.
So...is the Morg trying to say that back in DC times the american indians were lamenites, but that they've intermarried and become so "white and delightsome" since that now descendants are just "among" the american indians? I'm so confused by all this grey area in a church where everything is supposedly Black and White, good and evil...
john larsen...i tip my hat to your sir...'cept i'm cannot pull off hats and i look like a dork in them so i will smile a lovely wide smile and raise my english tea to your honor sir! (hey jeff we need a smiley with a champagne glass for toasts!)
this goes to show us postmos that even though there are only a couple thousand or so of us...we can make ourselves noticed! YAY FOR POSTMO!! nothing can stop us if we put our minds to it...
Assume my ass. Read the Book of Mormon itself. Read the writings of early church leaders. Read the talks of current church leaders. It's transparently obvious that the church has taught in a VERY straightforward fashion that the Book of Mormon is THE story explaining THE origins of the american indians. Church prophets have continually referred to indians in not only North and South America but also polynesia and the South Pacific as descendants of father Lehi.
The limited geography theory is a recent academic development by scholars seeing the evidence continually mount against the church's teachings about the Book of Mormon. They developed as a strategic retreat from the church's teachings and now it seems that the leadership is dropping back to prepared positions and hoping to minimize casualties.
Assume?!
Geez, it was no assumption. I was taught that from authorized church manuals, parents, teacher, professors, prophets, and apostles for my entire life. Don't insult me by telling me that I assumed it and that it was never doctrine.
Actually, this is a major problem with Mormonism and "living prophets." I remember teaching sunday school and priesthood lessons about scripture that allowed you to "assume" that a lot of stuff is scripture while at the same time not really committing to anything other than the standard works and official First Presidency statements. Conference addresses are fair game to accept as scripture and doctrines. Well, unless the church later decides to change its mind.
My DH says if the church had a doctrine test all the answers to questions would be correct--the only deciphering factor would be if you got the answer right according to what was taught in your generation.
In fairness, I did come across one article that specifically states that American Indians come from various ancestory of the old world. Though it does admit that the word lamanite is often used to refer to all the American Indians.
Thank you for the links Cato
A quote from this article you cited exposes the difficulty the "Limited Geography" theorists face.
"It is evident that the Indians’ original ancestors came from many ethnic groups in a number of different lands of the Old World. So it is impossible to claim that all American Indians are Lamanites. The Book of Mormon itself makes no such claim; it is only some Latter-day Saints who have done so."
"it is only some Latter-day Saints who have done so."
Those "some Latter-day Saints" happen to be "so called" prophets seers and revelators.
If you sign on to the limited geography theory of the BOM you cannot possible believe that the JS and company all the way down to GBH are prophets, seers and revelators! They have all made statements regarding the American Indians and lets not forget the Polynesians to be Lamanites (no matter whether they were actual descendants of Laman or apostate Nephites. BTW, was Zelph, the white Lamanite, an apostate Nephite? or was he a good Lamanite that turned white and delightsome? Mmm...?)
I can't help but wonder how TBM's take that news. I guess they are so numb to this sort of thing they barely hear it at all.
My TBM mom said, "Thanks for sending, Your father had read the article, I knew about the
change but hadn't had a chance to read about it. I'll bet Bruce R. is
glad to see that statement changed too. I know I wouldn't want all my
mistakes following me around forever. "
I replied,
Well I am sure Bruce McConkie is happy to see this goof up fixed but
don't you think the church should get around to fixing what Moroni
said about it to Joseph Smith, "He said there was a book deposited,
written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants
of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang." JS-History
1:34
Since the Book of Mormon does not give an account of any people who lived on this continent who are the ancestors of anyone who lives
now or even lived many centuries ago shouldn't the church be so kind
as to change his words also. Or how about changing Lehi's words when
he said, "And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as
yet from the knowledge of other nations" This Lehi said between 588
and 570 BC maybe they should change what he said there too because we know that the native peoples were basically everywhere in North and
South America many centuries before Lehi came. And no the Jaredites
are not an adequate explanation because these peoples destruction did
not happen when or how Joseph Smith said it happened in the Book of
Mormon.
Finally, after they do that they will need to do a major
clean up job of the D&C where they use Lamanites frequently referring
to the Native Americans. And now that we know through DNA that the
people Joseph was referring to don't have a drop of Lamanite blood in
them we ought to change what he said also don't you think.
The Salt Lake valley is really dusty right now from all that vigorous sweeping under the rug.
This is a really great line. I noticed a definite pink glow way over the mountains to the nortwest last evening at sunset. How high up did that dust cloud go?
I can't help but wonder how TBM's take that news. I guess they are so numb to this sort of thing they barely hear it at all.
My TBM mom said, "Thanks for sending, Your father had read the article, I knew about the change but hadn't had a chance to read about it. I'll bet Bruce R. is glad to see that statement changed too. I know I wouldn't want all my mistakes following me around forever. "
I replied,
Well I am sure Bruce McConkie is happy to see this goof up fixed but
don't you think the church should get around to fixing what Moroni
said about it to Joseph Smith, "He said there was a book deposited,
written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants
of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang." JS-History
1:34
Since the Book of Mormon does not give an account of any people who lived on this continent who are the ancestors of anyone who lives
now or even lived many centuries ago shouldn't the church be so kind
as to change his words also. Or how about changing Lehi's words when
he said, "And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as
yet from the knowledge of other nations" This Lehi said between 588
and 570 BC maybe they should change what he said there too because we know that the native peoples were basically everywhere in North and
South America many centuries before Lehi came. And no the Jaredites
are not an adequate explanation because these peoples destruction did
not happen when or how Joseph Smith said it happened in the Book of
Mormon.
Finally, after they do that they will need to do a major
clean up job of the D&C where they use Lamanites frequently referring
to the Native Americans. And now that we know through DNA that the
people Joseph was referring to don't have a drop of Lamanite blood in
them we ought to change what he said also don't you think.
I haven't got a response yet
What an excellant response, Iosepa, the whole Stepford Wives response to this is maddening. "It doesn't matter. Nothing matters, no amount of anti-Mormon comments will ever make me loose faith. I won't be one of the elect to be deceived in the last days." Errrmm... too late.
I can't wait for the AP to do a real unbiased report on this issue. Maybe they can do it the justice it deserves.
I doubt any news agency will "do it justice." I don't think an outside reporter can appreciate the significance of what this word change means to members, especially ex members. I think they will see it as evidence that the church is recognizing the science which is a good thing to them, not as a church which is trying to avoid acknowledging and owning up to the fact that their past prophets have been dead wrong on this critical part of the Mormon story.
.
? They would be over it like white on rice proclaiming the wonders of science and our understanding.
