LDS change introduction to Book of Mormon

[BartBurk]

It’s in today’s Salt Lake Tribune:

sltrib.com/news/ci_7403990

They are finally admitting there is no evidence Hebrews were the principal ancestors of the Native Americans. Science is beginning to trump the traditional Book of Mormon tale.

 

[ralphinal]

How will this be recieved? Will it be seen as an attack on their faith?

 

[BartBurk]

How will this be recieved? Will it be seen as an attack on their faith?

I don’t see how. The Mormons are the ones making the change to the introduction because they know they can’t sustain their historic belief that Native Americans have Hebrews as their principal ancestors.

 

[Prince_Hal]

I think this is one more piece of evidence, one more piece of the puzzle. In and of itself not a deathblow, but there must come a time when the hard evidence for some will be so overwhelming that they will reject Mormonism. For the vast majority the reply will be “…but I know it to be true.” not much we can do to combat emotion and those who just will not listen.

I was like that. No matter what was said I would not listen. It took one huge event to stop me in my tracks and listen objectively.

Very interesting news. Thanks mate.

 

[zerinus]

It’s in today’s Salt Lake Tribune:

sltrib.com/news/ci_7403990

They are finally admitting there is no evidence Hebrews were the principal ancestors of the Native Americans. Science is beginning to trump the traditional Book of Mormon tale.

I don’t see that big a difference between them. The difference amounts the following:

the principal ancestors of
among the ancestors of

In both stalemates it says that the Lamanites are not the exclusive ancestors of the American Indians. In the first is says that the Lamanites are the Principle ancestors (but not the exclusive ancestors), whereas the second says that the Lamanites are among the ancestors (i.e. not the exclusive ancestors). The difference is one of degree.

Not a lot of difference as far as I can see.

zerinus

 

[ralphinal]

I do see what you are saying, zerinus, but I do see a subtle difference. I am an American of predominately Irish and Italian heritage. I do have some Cherokee and Dutch as well as others not worth mentioning. I define my heritage as Irish-Italian (my primary heritage). By saying that Irish and Italian are among my ancestors, you change the definition of “Ralph.” When the belief was that Native Americans were decended from a Tribe of Isreal “principally,” you are saying that they are closely related to that group in heritage and blood. By saying that T.o.I. is one of many ancestors, you remove, in my mind, the strength of the connection. Why, for exapmle, would Jesus want to appear to them if they were no longer directly decended from the origional T.o.I?

 

[majick275]

Bit more of a difference here. The BoM claims that prior to the arrival of these “chosen People” (Lehites, Jaredites) there was no one else on the continent. The Lord had “hidden” it to preserve it for them. Once here it alleges to record all encounters with others (mulekites, etc.) and precludes any other peoples cohabiting this “promised land” until at least after the time of Moroni. Mormon teaching on this subject was clear for many years from Joseph Smith through Spencer Kimball that all indigenous American peoples (as well as the Polynesians) were lamanites. LDS leaders gave talk after talk claiming (name removed by moderator)ired words for the “lamanite” people. Now that this is proven impossible they backpedal and claim it was all speculation and we really don’t know and the BoM COULD still be true if we engage in some SLIGHT mental gymnastics. They then debater only the extreme xconclusions not the underlying problem and pretend that previous teachings either didn’t exist or must have been taken out of context/misrecorded or just been someone thinking out loud as a man not a prophet.

 

[zerinus]

I do see what you are saying, zerinus, but I do see a subtle difference. I am an American of predominately Irish and Italian heritage. I do have some Cherokee and Dutch as well as others not worth mentioning. I define my heritage as Irish-Italian (my primary heritage). By saying that Irish and Italian are among my ancestors, you change the definition of “Ralph.” When the belief was that Native Americans were decended from a Tribe of Isreal “principally,” you are saying that they are closely related to that group in heritage and blood. By saying that T.o.I. is one of many ancestors, you remove, in my mind, the strength of the connection.

I think that you are stretching it a bit with that one.

Why, for exapmle, would Jesus want to appear to them if they were no longer directly decended from the origional T.o.I?

Those to whom Jesus appeared were the descendants of the original Hebrews. The mixtures (if any) would have taken place at a much later time.

zerinus

 

[Chris-WA]

It’s in today’s Salt Lake Tribune:

sltrib.com/news/ci_7403990

They are finally admitting there is no evidence Hebrews were the principal ancestors of the Native Americans. Science is beginning to trump the traditional Book of Mormon tale.

This change is very significant. LDS apologists will surely downplay it, but it means a lot, and is probably just the beginning. At some point the LDS leadership may have to tell the membership that they must accept the BoM totally and completely on faith alone as science continues to debunk its historical claims. Funny how science seems to confirm the historical claims of the bible, but for the BoM, the opposite is true. Thank God that He gave us faith and reason, and expects us to use them both.

 

[ralphinal]

I am not sure how big a stretch it is. Intermarrage was frowned upon by the ancient Jews, even after Christ. Besides, isn’t it a little hard to beleive that they could have made it from Isreal to America in the short period of time? What is the time-line and how large a population are we talking about? Second, where are the other sources that might prove this? Any legends in the Native people? Any other non-Book of Morman sources?

 

[Jerusha]

There is NO evidence for Israelite migration to Meso-America in pre-Columbian times. There is NO evidence (other than the Olmecs, whose features were African) for ancient migrations to the Americas, other than through Siberia.

There is plenty of evidence in American Indian legends that the Viking invasion was more extensive than most historians are willing to admit. There is some speculative evidence of Irish contact with North America. There are believable claims of Muslim contact with the Americas in pre-Columbian times. Any possibilities of historical truth in the Book of Mormon are wound up in these events, but the beginning dates are clearly 600 AD (speculatively) and 980 AD (well documented).

Thank you for your questions.

 

[ApostateRLDS]

This change is very significant. LDS apologists will surely downplay it, but it means a lot, and is probably just the beginning. At some point the LDS leadership may have to tell the membership that they must accept the BoM totally and completely on faith alone as science continues to debunk its historical claims. Funny how science seems to confirm the historical claims of the bible, but for the BoM, the opposite is true. Thank God that He gave us faith and reason, and expects us to use them both.

Sure the the apologists will try to downplay it, but the LDS church is basically admitting that the cat’s out of the bag(bravo Simon Southerton). After years of trying to dodge the problems with the book BOM by claiming that in the ‘most perfect book ever written’ hourses were really tapirs , swords were really clubs, etc, Mormon GA’s are finally confronting the fact the that basic claim in the BOM is scientifically impossible.

 

[BartBurk]

Sure the the apologists will try to downplay it, but the LDS church is basically admitting that the cat’s out of the bag(bravo Simon Southerton). After years of trying to dodge the problems with the book BOM by claiming that in the ‘most perfect book ever written’ hourses were really tapirs , swords were really clubs, etc, Mormon GA’s are finally confronting the fact the that basic claim in the BOM is scientifically impossible.

It is hard for me to understand how a person who seriously has looked into it can come away believing in the Book of Mormon. I don’t care what kind of supposed spiritual experiences they might claim, in the end the book just can’t stand scrutiny:

irr.org/mit/bompage.html

Pro Book of Mormon “scholars” compound the problem when they try to force it into a Central American geography. It just simply doesn’t work.

 

[ApostateRLDS]

It is hard for me to understand how a person who seriously has looked into it can come away believing in the Book of Mormon. I don’t care what kind of supposed spiritual experiences they might claim, in the end the book just can’t stand scrutiny:

irr.org/mit/bompage.html

Pro Book of Mormon “scholars” compound the problem when they try to force it into a Central American geography. It just simply doesn’t work.

Just chalk it up to one more change to the ‘most perfect book ever written’. Odd that a book ‘translated’ by a prophet from God has had to be revised so much.

 

[BartBurk]

Just chalk it up to one more change to the ‘most perfect book ever written’. Odd that a book ‘translated’ by a prophet from God has had to be revised so much.

In fairness, the change made was to an introduction written by Bruce R. McConkie in 1981, not to the actual Book of Mormon.

 

[ApostateRLDS]

In fairness, the change made was to an introduction written by Bruce R. McConkie in 1981, not to the actual Book of Mormon.

Technically… yes. However, since this involves an important change in the intro by one of the more important GA’s, it amounts to the same thing.

 

[rien]

This change is very significant. LDS apologists will surely downplay it, but it means a lot, and is probably just the beginning. At some point the LDS leadership may have to tell the membership that they must accept the BoM totally and completely on faith alone as science continues to debunk its historical claims. Funny how science seems to confirm the historical claims of the bible, but for the BoM, the opposite is true. Thank God that He gave us faith and reason, and expects us to use them both.

Like science confirms the world is 7000 yearas old? Yeah right. I think science is calling into question both Bible and BoM dogma/teaching.

 

[PaulDupre]

Catholics are not required to believe that the earth is 7000 years old, or to take a literal interpretation of the parts of the bible that seem allegorical.

We Catholics say:
“In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. But in all things, charity.”

God bless you,
Paul

 

[rien]

Catholics are not required to believe that the earth is 7000 years old, or to take a literal interpretation of the parts of the bible that seem allegorical.

We Catholics say:
“In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. But in all things, charity.”

God bless you,
Paul

That is exactly what Bishop Spong says. If you don’t take a literal interpretation - which I agree you can’t - then there are many paths down which you can follow Chriotianity, Which made no sense to me. Truth is truth, The Bible is true/accurate or not - certainly not open to interpretation as non-fundamentalists like Catholics and Episcopals do.

But the Bible is actually so unclear and open to interpretation.

As in the Trinity, Personally I can’t/couldn’t get there - what the councils defined - from what i read in Scripture. Why I am not a Christian.

 

[Holly3278]

Just another piece of evidence against the Mormons. Hebrews never came to America and why the Mormons insist that they did, I don’t know.