Reader comments
Debate renewed with change in Book of Mormon introduction
147 comments | Read story
- Page:
- < Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
Reason to believe | 2:56 p.m. Nov. 12, 2007
I believe our LDS prophet is truly called from God, but like many also recognize
that he is still human and thus not entirely infallible. Yes, everything he says
I consider scripture, and as if God himself revealed it to me. The reason why I
believe that God did not "intervene" in the introduction of the Book
of Mormon even if it was not entirely precise is because it really MAKES NO
DIFFERENCE in matters pertaining to our salvation. What difference does it make
who the descendants of the lamanites are? That is not important, what's
important is that people read the Book of Mormon,find out for themselves that it
is true, and use it as guidance for their salvation. People who are set upon
finding fault within the Book of Mormon will always be able to find faults in
the book. As for me, I really don't care. I've received my witness of
the Book of Mormon and it is all that I care about.
Rationality | 6:15 p.m. Nov. 12, 2007
Those who already believe will continue to believe despite this word change.
These comments demonstrate that, with testimonies being declared repeatedly by
many.
The frustrating thing for the unbelievers is when they hope to engage in a dialogue about an important topic. Imagine how frusrating it is when your interlocutor avoids the substance of the discussion and resorts to "testimony echolalia."
In this case, the consequences are mild. But imagine trying to have a rational dialogue with an Islamic fundamentalist who refuses to engage in reasonable and substantive discussion and, chanting his/her "testimony", proceeds undeterred to slam the jet into the skyscraper!
That is how it appears to us nonbelievers - we feel we are being held hostage by your esoteric knowledge, and reason is ruled out of bounds from the beginning.
The frustrating thing for the unbelievers is when they hope to engage in a dialogue about an important topic. Imagine how frusrating it is when your interlocutor avoids the substance of the discussion and resorts to "testimony echolalia."
In this case, the consequences are mild. But imagine trying to have a rational dialogue with an Islamic fundamentalist who refuses to engage in reasonable and substantive discussion and, chanting his/her "testimony", proceeds undeterred to slam the jet into the skyscraper!
That is how it appears to us nonbelievers - we feel we are being held hostage by your esoteric knowledge, and reason is ruled out of bounds from the beginning.
Comments continue below
Harold | 12:27 a.m. Nov. 13, 2007
Rationality, this is a good point. However, few of the beliefs of the LDS church
or any church can be proven in a debate. So in a debate we are left to try to
show that it is possible that the beliefs are true - and in this case you have a
point if someone resorts to spiritual testimony. And in this case the LDS often
admittedly have an ulterior purpose, to proselytize.
However apart from just debate, it does seem that that many of the criticisms of the LDS are harsh considering any alternative religious belief. It is easy to criticize with no or unspecified religious belief, like a backseat driver.
Research has and is done on the Book of Mormon as well as many other aspects of the LDS religion by faithful LDS scholars. Most have not jetted the church nor have they proven LDS claims. But the church has never asked its members to accept teachings soley based on physical evidence, it has asked them to receive a witness for themself from God. Whether this has happened or not for anyone is obviously open for intense critism from those who believe that it has not.
However apart from just debate, it does seem that that many of the criticisms of the LDS are harsh considering any alternative religious belief. It is easy to criticize with no or unspecified religious belief, like a backseat driver.
Research has and is done on the Book of Mormon as well as many other aspects of the LDS religion by faithful LDS scholars. Most have not jetted the church nor have they proven LDS claims. But the church has never asked its members to accept teachings soley based on physical evidence, it has asked them to receive a witness for themself from God. Whether this has happened or not for anyone is obviously open for intense critism from those who believe that it has not.
A story | 8:32 a.m. Nov. 13, 2007
I have a story that might help explain how to put this kind of thing (a word
change in our scriptures) into context...
A couple of years ago I bought a book at an LDS bookstore. The book dealt with a "theory" that the BOM peoples/cities, etc, were in North America, not in central America. An interesting read, a nice theory. Some of the "evidence" was based on statements by Joseph Smith and BY regarding "the location of Zarahemla", "where the Gadianton Robbers hid out", etc. There were MANY statements by early leaders which "located" BOM sites (Hill Cumorah, for example). I had a specific question about copper plates that were found in the upper mid west (Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, etc.). I wrote the question to the church representative at the Church History Museum (next to the Genealogy Library). I got a call back! We had a nice converstation. The gist of the conversation was he did NOT believe the copper plates ("Michigan Collection") were genuine and did NOT believe the statements by early leaders were accurate. There are times when leaders are simply giving their opinion, but we take it as fact. That is the case here.
A couple of years ago I bought a book at an LDS bookstore. The book dealt with a "theory" that the BOM peoples/cities, etc, were in North America, not in central America. An interesting read, a nice theory. Some of the "evidence" was based on statements by Joseph Smith and BY regarding "the location of Zarahemla", "where the Gadianton Robbers hid out", etc. There were MANY statements by early leaders which "located" BOM sites (Hill Cumorah, for example). I had a specific question about copper plates that were found in the upper mid west (Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, etc.). I wrote the question to the church representative at the Church History Museum (next to the Genealogy Library). I got a call back! We had a nice converstation. The gist of the conversation was he did NOT believe the copper plates ("Michigan Collection") were genuine and did NOT believe the statements by early leaders were accurate. There are times when leaders are simply giving their opinion, but we take it as fact. That is the case here.
Rationality | 9:58 a.m. Nov. 13, 2007
To Harold | 12:27 a.m.
Likewise, your point is well-taken. If I have understood it correctly, it is that the LDS Church asks people (not just its members) to ask God if their claims are true.
That is fair enough as far as it goes. But there can be no doubt that in practical application this challenge turns into a no-win situation for those who HAVE asked God and either NOT received such a "testimony," or have received what they believe to be revelation from God saying that the LDS claims are NOT true.
Such people are clearly and openly condemned by believers as being flawed or sinful in some way. It is never a possibility that very good, righteous people actually have received spiritual confirmation that the LDS claims are NOT true. Instead, believers insist that such a "revelation" must be from the devil, or must be a sign of sin on the part of the petitioner.
Which brings up the key point. How can two seemingly righteous people receive "spiritual confirmation" of "truths" that are fundamentally contradictory? And most importantly, how can these contradictory claims be reconciled or adjudicated?
Religion has no answer. Science does.
Likewise, your point is well-taken. If I have understood it correctly, it is that the LDS Church asks people (not just its members) to ask God if their claims are true.
That is fair enough as far as it goes. But there can be no doubt that in practical application this challenge turns into a no-win situation for those who HAVE asked God and either NOT received such a "testimony," or have received what they believe to be revelation from God saying that the LDS claims are NOT true.
Such people are clearly and openly condemned by believers as being flawed or sinful in some way. It is never a possibility that very good, righteous people actually have received spiritual confirmation that the LDS claims are NOT true. Instead, believers insist that such a "revelation" must be from the devil, or must be a sign of sin on the part of the petitioner.
Which brings up the key point. How can two seemingly righteous people receive "spiritual confirmation" of "truths" that are fundamentally contradictory? And most importantly, how can these contradictory claims be reconciled or adjudicated?
Religion has no answer. Science does.
Rationality | 10:07 a.m. Nov. 13, 2007
Scientific inquiry adjudicates between conflicting claims of "truth"
by peaceful public discourse and systematic testing according to mutually
agreeable principles.
By contrast, religions either refuse to adjudicate between conflicting claims of "truth" altogether, or do so through economic, political, and military warfare.
I invoke the history of Western civilization to testify that science is an overall more peaceful and civil approach to adjudicating between truth claims than religion has ever been.
As such, with the track records of both religion and science cited as witnesses, it seems clear that the leaders of the LDS Church have decided to change this word in deference to the superior knowledge obtained by scientific inquiry. Kudos to them. We can only hope that the significance of such a change is not lost on the LDS members who should have a new respect for science and its contributions to peace and civility in human societies.
By contrast, religions either refuse to adjudicate between conflicting claims of "truth" altogether, or do so through economic, political, and military warfare.
I invoke the history of Western civilization to testify that science is an overall more peaceful and civil approach to adjudicating between truth claims than religion has ever been.
As such, with the track records of both religion and science cited as witnesses, it seems clear that the leaders of the LDS Church have decided to change this word in deference to the superior knowledge obtained by scientific inquiry. Kudos to them. We can only hope that the significance of such a change is not lost on the LDS members who should have a new respect for science and its contributions to peace and civility in human societies.
Good grief | 10:19 a.m. Nov. 13, 2007
The purpose of the BOM is for "...the convincing of the Jew and Gentile
that Jesus is the Christ." EVERYTHING ELSE RE that book is secondary. We
don't know where the history took place (you will find stronger evidence in
the cultural aspect of the record than in archealogical evidence -- or lack
thereof). We don't know how widespread the civilization of those peoples
was, or even how many other civilizations were in the place before Lehi and crew
showed up. It is all rather innocuous. The BOM is not given to prove Joseph
Smith to be a prophet. It is a written record that Jesus Christ was a real
person and that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the way of salvation. A change in
the "introduction" to the BOM will not, indeed cannot change that.
One thing I try to keep in mind is this: Just because I wasn't there to
see it for myself doesn't mean it didn't happen. Many special things
have happened to me and I have a record of them for my children. The same is
true for the writers of the BOM (Mormon was the abridger of a larger record).
Joyce | 12:26 p.m. Nov. 13, 2007
Someone famous once said a life unexamined isn't worth living. A religion
unexamined isn't worth living either. Ask yourself - if you die and go to
heaven and find out it was all a lie, what part of how you've lived will
you regret? If it's nothing. Then continue on with your blinders on your
eyes. Remember, the truth will set you free.
Anonymous | 12:55 p.m. Nov. 13, 2007
When you believe in things that you don't understand - then you suffer.
Superstition ain't the way. - Stevie Wonder
Superstition ain't the way. - Stevie Wonder
da | 1:03 p.m. Nov. 13, 2007
the bible does not contain the fullness of the everlasting gopel
Fed-Up! | 1:31 p.m. Nov. 13, 2007
Give me a break! I'm reading so much nonsense here. Let the LDS church
change whatever they want to change. It wont make a bit of difference, or change
the church any. However, why don't the church members work on some more
important things within the church... Like teaching members not to place
themselves above others because they have a certain or higher church calling
than someone else. The church is creating a lot of holier than thou group of
people. The arrogance is repulsive to say the least!
PURPOSE | 1:53 p.m. Nov. 13, 2007
The main purpose of the Book of Mormon if you read the title page is written to
the Lamanites who are a remnant of the tribe of Israel. The Book of Mormon is
written to the American Indians so they will come to realize who they really are
and that they are not cast off forever. This is the real purpose of the Book!
This is why it was saved and this is why the prophets prayed for it to come to
them in the future to remember their ancestors and what great things they did.
Yellow Horse | 2:06 p.m. Nov. 13, 2007
PURPOSE/ They do not like mormons or any other religion!
RELIGION | 3:22 p.m. Nov. 13, 2007
Its nice to see the DN poke a stick in the beehive that is "religion in
Utah." Its these kind of articles that really bring out the jesus freaks,
mormon zealots, and those who adamantly oppose them. Thanks DN editor.
A NONY MOOSE | 3:59 p.m. Nov. 13, 2007
I strongly feel that any one person who feels that a small change in the
introduction page of the Book of Mormon changes it's content or meaning
should spend some time on thier knees in prayer with thier Father In Heaven.
"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God"
To FED-UP!, I am truly sorry. I personally have never had this issue with anyone in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I think this is probably because my parents taught me as a young man that there is no greater calling in the Church than the one you hold. It is not a matter that should even have to taught in Church. (Though I agree with you that it has become necessary)
I place the blame for your offended soul on that of your parents not teaching you tolerance, learn to tolerate these people and your soul will rejoice!
I further place the blame of your so called "Holier Than Thou" groups on that of their parents. Where they went wrong, I may never know.
We are all children of our Father In Heaven! That alone makes us equal in every right to one another.
To FED-UP!, I am truly sorry. I personally have never had this issue with anyone in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I think this is probably because my parents taught me as a young man that there is no greater calling in the Church than the one you hold. It is not a matter that should even have to taught in Church. (Though I agree with you that it has become necessary)
I place the blame for your offended soul on that of your parents not teaching you tolerance, learn to tolerate these people and your soul will rejoice!
I further place the blame of your so called "Holier Than Thou" groups on that of their parents. Where they went wrong, I may never know.
We are all children of our Father In Heaven! That alone makes us equal in every right to one another.
Jackboot | 6:38 p.m. Nov. 13, 2007
How many comments above are from those who are most affected by this change?
I'm referring to LDS who are of Native American and Pacific Island descent.
As one who is partly of that lineage among others, I can say that I know who I
am and where my ancestors come from. I know that the Book of Mormon is a record
of their ancestors. That said, even the Book of Mormon documents many people who
have come into this hemisphere, and there are about 1400 years between the time
Moroni put it into the ground and Joseph Smith brought it back up again. I
don't know who else came through during that time. Also, given that there
were 12 tribes of Israel and we really know of only one that has maintained its
identity, how accurate can DNA testing be? It can tell us that my son is mine
and not my brother's. Compound that over the millennia and see how far
apart genetic strains can go. The descendants of Lehi are who they are. We know
it, from the faithful members in Tonga to the faithful members of the Catawba
Nation in South Carolina.
Genealogy bird | 7:31 p.m. Nov. 13, 2007
I am really interested in the DNA research going on with Ancestry.com . It looks
as though many people will find out just a bit about their genealogy, and
perhaps their ethnic and geographic origins. It will certainly answer many
questions for many people who are looking for their roots.
As far as the small change in the Book Of Mormon. It doesn't affect the gospel whatsoever. We need change now and then. This isn't the dark ages, as someone else mentioned earlier.
As far as the small change in the Book Of Mormon. It doesn't affect the gospel whatsoever. We need change now and then. This isn't the dark ages, as someone else mentioned earlier.
Derak | 9:32 p.m. Nov. 13, 2007
Maybe people should learn the first thing about passing along mitochondrial DNA
before they start taking it as evidence of a link or non-link across a 1600 year
time period. I think that DNA research should certainly continue, but it is not
to the point where we can make conclusive results yet.
A few interesting points from this article and some general info from good old wikipedia. M. DNA is passed by the mother only, so a line of it would end if a mother had no daughters. More importantly, having children with a woman of a different geneology would insert her m. DNA into your children, replacing the m. DNA from generations before. Also, the Jaredites could be from other places and the Lamanites had gone through some change to make their skin darker. Intermarrying with peoples whom had migrated from Asia, for example, could accomplish that. Furthermore, the Lamanites and Nephites may have united for a time in 4th Nephi before dissenting. Intermarriage with Asian dissent would again mask hebrew m.DNA. Then there is the fact that Native American populations (500) are mixed and so are the Jewish populations. 75/500 N.A. pops have been tested.
A few interesting points from this article and some general info from good old wikipedia. M. DNA is passed by the mother only, so a line of it would end if a mother had no daughters. More importantly, having children with a woman of a different geneology would insert her m. DNA into your children, replacing the m. DNA from generations before. Also, the Jaredites could be from other places and the Lamanites had gone through some change to make their skin darker. Intermarrying with peoples whom had migrated from Asia, for example, could accomplish that. Furthermore, the Lamanites and Nephites may have united for a time in 4th Nephi before dissenting. Intermarriage with Asian dissent would again mask hebrew m.DNA. Then there is the fact that Native American populations (500) are mixed and so are the Jewish populations. 75/500 N.A. pops have been tested.
Derak | 9:46 p.m. Nov. 13, 2007
Another interesting fact about Thomas' work. He monitored a Y chromosome
gene to link one African population considered to be non-jewish to a jewish
population. This gene is only present in 45-55% of the Jews claiming to be in
that group. He then notes that this particular gene wasn't found in any of
the N.A. indians checked, so that is proof that they have no Jewish relation.
No wonder there are claims that his search did not follow the scientific method!
I can't believe how easy it really is to poke holes in the argument that
genes disprove the BofM. Any respectable scientist should turn up his nose as
such inconclusive studies. I say that as a scientist, a grad student
specializing in pchem, who also has exposure to biochem experts.
Professor | 10:54 p.m. Nov. 13, 2007
To Derak | 9:32 p.m.
"Respectable" scientists do not "turn up their nose" at "inconclusive" studies. Granted Thomas' work is not definitive, but it is far from being as fatally flawed as you are suggesting with your straw man summary of the research.
Let us hope that as your graduate studies continue you actually learn a little about genetics, but more importantly, that you learn about the integrity of the scientific process.
"Respectable" scientists do not "turn up their nose" at "inconclusive" studies. Granted Thomas' work is not definitive, but it is far from being as fatally flawed as you are suggesting with your straw man summary of the research.
Let us hope that as your graduate studies continue you actually learn a little about genetics, but more importantly, that you learn about the integrity of the scientific process.
Derak | 12:04 a.m. Nov. 14, 2007
"Turn up their nose" might have been a little strong, but taking
inconclusive studies and presenting them as concrete evidence is at least
unethical if not downright deceitful. I would say that basing a study on a gene
carried by a small percent of the Jewish population to less than a fifth of the
native american populations and then saying you can't find it as evidence
that there is no geneological link is pretty flawed. Then there is the fact
that the DNA was compared with Jews from now, after many generations of
traveling and breeding, instead of Jews from 1600 years ago. That is lack of a
control, which is also a serious flaw.
The way that the m. DNA is passed down presents a flaw as well. You call my argument strawman for representing the whole of his research with assumptions that prove him wrong, but these are not assumptions. I am pointing out some serious problems with his project that need to be addressed before any conclusions can be reached. You yourself admit the work is not definitive, but I suppose you will call that a strawman attack.
The way that the m. DNA is passed down presents a flaw as well. You call my argument strawman for representing the whole of his research with assumptions that prove him wrong, but these are not assumptions. I am pointing out some serious problems with his project that need to be addressed before any conclusions can be reached. You yourself admit the work is not definitive, but I suppose you will call that a strawman attack.
Ian D. | 12:19 a.m. Nov. 14, 2007
TO ALL FELLOW MEMBERS PLEASE READ
Please understand more of this issue, it is not just the into page. This is an issue that should not just be called "minor" and we leave it in ignorance. Both Joesph Smith and President Hinckley have taught the doctrine of principal ancestry from Lehi. Look at the footnotes in any major JS biography for citations to many early historical church records and direct quotes form JS. As to Pres. Hinckley he has made it clear while speaking as the prophet that this is doctrine. At least 3 times while prophet in the last 10 years, he has addressed thousands of members in South America and called them "Sons and daughters of Lehi". This is our doctrine and Bruce McKonkie did not just make it up. I for one find the change difficult to reconcile with what has been said over the pulpit and in writings of every major prophet we have had. Does it lessen my faith? No. But should we act like its only one minor change, and is found nowhere else in our doctrine and then in ignorance make light of it to non-members and those who question? NO.
Please understand more of this issue, it is not just the into page. This is an issue that should not just be called "minor" and we leave it in ignorance. Both Joesph Smith and President Hinckley have taught the doctrine of principal ancestry from Lehi. Look at the footnotes in any major JS biography for citations to many early historical church records and direct quotes form JS. As to Pres. Hinckley he has made it clear while speaking as the prophet that this is doctrine. At least 3 times while prophet in the last 10 years, he has addressed thousands of members in South America and called them "Sons and daughters of Lehi". This is our doctrine and Bruce McKonkie did not just make it up. I for one find the change difficult to reconcile with what has been said over the pulpit and in writings of every major prophet we have had. Does it lessen my faith? No. But should we act like its only one minor change, and is found nowhere else in our doctrine and then in ignorance make light of it to non-members and those who question? NO.
To Ian D. from Chris | 6:09 p.m. Nov. 14, 2007
I have felt the same way. But why am I (and you?) hesitant to admit this
"changes" my faith?
I have been taught all my life that having doubts and not trusting in the prophets completely is a SIN.
Is that right? Are prophets able to be wrong? Does that make me a bad/unworthy person if I think they HAVE been wrong?
What does it really mean to say "I sustain Pres. Hinckley as the prophet..."?
Does that mean "blindly obey," or "never think error is possible from" him?
I don't think so. In fact, I found a talk by Packer that illustrates sustaining:
"But Moses' hands were heavy; and they took a stone, and put it under him, and he sat thereon; and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands, the one on the one side, and the other on the other side; and his hands were steady until the going down of the sun." (Exodus 17:12)
The prophet, Moses, was weak, imperfect, made mistakes, and needed HELP from Aaron and Hur to fulfill his calling. That made me feel better.
I have been taught all my life that having doubts and not trusting in the prophets completely is a SIN.
Is that right? Are prophets able to be wrong? Does that make me a bad/unworthy person if I think they HAVE been wrong?
What does it really mean to say "I sustain Pres. Hinckley as the prophet..."?
Does that mean "blindly obey," or "never think error is possible from" him?
I don't think so. In fact, I found a talk by Packer that illustrates sustaining:
"But Moses' hands were heavy; and they took a stone, and put it under him, and he sat thereon; and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands, the one on the one side, and the other on the other side; and his hands were steady until the going down of the sun." (Exodus 17:12)
The prophet, Moses, was weak, imperfect, made mistakes, and needed HELP from Aaron and Hur to fulfill his calling. That made me feel better.
Derak | 9:05 p.m. Nov. 14, 2007
You have been taught that having doubt and not trusting completely in the church
is a sin???? Sorry, but the church teaches that you have the right to pray
about church doctrine (and anything else) and receive your own witness as to if
it is correct. In fact, this should probably be just as much of a
responsibility as a right. Praying, receiving your own witness after you have
thought about it and reasoned it through, followed by trying it and then judging
the fruits for yourself is expected. The importance of thinking for yourself,
asking God, and then judging the results is emphasized again and again. This
pattern is a common thread. For example, read BofM, pray. Try it; see the
results. Try living a doctrine in faith and then judge the results. Try
tithing and see if you are blessed.
There have been a few instances where people had genuine reasons to not sustain, voted opposed, and then their claims were considered. If you don't want to vote to sustain someone, then don't. No one raises your hand for you, but if you choose to blindly follow, then that is your own choice.
There have been a few instances where people had genuine reasons to not sustain, voted opposed, and then their claims were considered. If you don't want to vote to sustain someone, then don't. No one raises your hand for you, but if you choose to blindly follow, then that is your own choice.
Robert | 9:51 p.m. Nov. 14, 2007
When I was growing up in the LDS church they taught openly that Native American
Indians were the direct ancestors of Lehi and North American is the setting. My
wife being Navajo was taught by the church that the Book of Mormon was about her
people. Joseph Smith confirms this in his history 1:34 when he said the golden
plates "giving an account of the former inhabitants of THIS continent, and
the source from whence they sprang" given to him by the angel Moroni (page
53 Joseph Smith-History). It is quite clear that Smith meant North America where
he happened to be standing and former inhabitants were the American Indians as
we know them today. After a 160 years of teaching what Joseph Smith claimed to
be true and then to change Smith�s story makes no sense
unless the facts of today causes doubt in Smith�s original
story.
D&C 42:12 confirms the 1981 introduction page print that says the Bible contains the fulness of the everlasting gospel. D&C 42:12 reads, "teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fulness of the gospel."
Any arguments?
D&C 42:12 confirms the 1981 introduction page print that says the Bible contains the fulness of the everlasting gospel. D&C 42:12 reads, "teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fulness of the gospel."
Any arguments?
Victoria | 10:32 p.m. Nov. 14, 2007
In 1871 George A. Smith said, �If a faith will not bear to
be investigated; if its preachers and professors are afraid to have it examined,
their foundation must be weak. Why is it that our leaders are so concerned
with us looking into our history, other than anything simply faith promoting?
If my faith is based on truth - then the truth will not destroy my faith. Faith
has to be based on truth. With a little studying I found out the truth was very
different from what I was taught and based my life on.
It�s all out there from the web to many well written and
referenced books by people who are not anti-Mormon, but simply searchers of the
truth.
Joseph spent many hours with his family studying the bible and many other works. He may not have been educated in a formal setting, but certainly he was well versed in scriptural and religious matters. Read some of his lectures and writings - he was brilliant. In my estimation, he was a genius. iRemember he had many years to formulate his story and construct a scriptural book. Read about it - you might learn some new truths.
Joseph spent many hours with his family studying the bible and many other works. He may not have been educated in a formal setting, but certainly he was well versed in scriptural and religious matters. Read some of his lectures and writings - he was brilliant. In my estimation, he was a genius. iRemember he had many years to formulate his story and construct a scriptural book. Read about it - you might learn some new truths.
Sider | 2:28 p.m. Nov. 15, 2007
Victoria- I like what you said. Good point.
Eric Shun | 6:22 p.m. Nov. 15, 2007
Victoria and Sider,
-FYI-
Members of the LDS church are not discouraged to study it out. In fact, it is in their scriptures to study it out, and then ask god if whatever they are studying is right or wrong. So you don't have a good point and your logic is backwards. And tell me, what self serving purpose would joseph smith have had to use his "genius" to get himself beat, abused and killed? It seems your logic there is also flawed.
Take care.
-FYI-
Members of the LDS church are not discouraged to study it out. In fact, it is in their scriptures to study it out, and then ask god if whatever they are studying is right or wrong. So you don't have a good point and your logic is backwards. And tell me, what self serving purpose would joseph smith have had to use his "genius" to get himself beat, abused and killed? It seems your logic there is also flawed.
Take care.
Eric Shun | 6:37 p.m. Nov. 15, 2007
Robert,
Changing the introduction to read "among" doesn't preclude the american indian or make the book of mormon or the church false. Get over yourself. The bible has been changed way more than the book of mormon but it is the end all be all in every other christian religion in the world.
take care.
Changing the introduction to read "among" doesn't preclude the american indian or make the book of mormon or the church false. Get over yourself. The bible has been changed way more than the book of mormon but it is the end all be all in every other christian religion in the world.
take care.
sider | 8:34 p.m. Nov. 15, 2007
E Shun, What point are you trying to make? I'm not understanding what you
are saying?
monitee | 10:37 a.m. Nov. 16, 2007
Heres a question for you. Do you believe that gods word is weak? Do you
believe that it isn't complete and needs more faith? Thats what one LDS
woman told me. Its just more faith. Does that even make sense. Look to the
bible. When Jesus died on the cross he said those words. "It is
finished" no more no less. You have two choices. Know the lord and be
saved or reject him and die. Not in the sense of death we know. But in Hebrew,
seperation. permanant.
Derak | 5:22 p.m. Nov. 16, 2007
To Monitee.
If the Gospel was over and "finished" when Jesus died, then what do you make of Acts and the Epistles? Do they not count in the Bible or as part of the Gospel? I think most reasonable people would conclude that Christ's act of atonement was finished. Let's not forget that Christ's resurrection was after the fateful day he said "It is finished." We certainly wouldn't want to leave his resurrection out of the Gospel or the Apostles' accounts of seeing him, speaking to him, even eating with him. Do the Revelations not count? Where do we draw the line, and what about the Apocrypha that were left out? Was Stephen's death and his vision of Jesus on the right hand of God all in vain? What about Saul's conversion and and the enormous amount of work and suffering he went through in service of the Lord. Certainly, the Gospel and the relationship of God with mankind was not finished the day Jesus died. I think I'll leave it at that before I get to contentious.
Scott | 10:50 p.m. Nov. 17, 2007
The introduction to the Book of Mormon is not scripture. The Title Page is, but
not the introduction. The scriptural text does not indicate if Lamanites are
primary ancestors or among ancestors of the future American Indians. I believed
all of my life that the Lamanites were "primary ansestors". If science
proves this to be wrong, I'm okay with that. I can change my opinion to
"among". Neither contradicts the scriptures.
Robert | 8:00 p.m. Nov. 20, 2007
Thanks E Shun for your honest opinion. Changes to the Book of Mormon should
spark some concerns to those Whom are relying on it for guidance to eternal
life.
The disclaimer on the explanation page of the Book of Mormon admits that there has been errors in previous editions that don't line up with Joseph Smith's earlier edition.
So does this change in meaning represent Smith's earlier claims?
By the way Eric, I got over myself 8 years ago when I was saved. I no longer live for myself but for Jesus.
The disclaimer on the explanation page of the Book of Mormon admits that there has been errors in previous editions that don't line up with Joseph Smith's earlier edition.
So does this change in meaning represent Smith's earlier claims?
By the way Eric, I got over myself 8 years ago when I was saved. I no longer live for myself but for Jesus.
JT | 7:27 a.m. Dec. 5, 2007
I'm amused by the "don't confuse me with the facts, God already
told me what to believe" crowd, as well as the "well science
can't prove everything, so you can't trust it for anything"
group. I'll bet these same folks do look both ways before crossing a busy
street though!
Another interesting defense is the "new revelation" defense, despite the fact that changes don't just introduce new information, but actually contridict others or change doctrine. Did God goof the first time?
Then there's the "none of this really matters" group. That would be nice if the Book of Mormon only claimed to be a religious text. But it claims to be REAL history. And REAL historical events leave real evidence. If the historical information, which can be examined is found lacking, why should I buy the religious claims, which cannot?
Another interesting defense is the "new revelation" defense, despite the fact that changes don't just introduce new information, but actually contridict others or change doctrine. Did God goof the first time?
Then there's the "none of this really matters" group. That would be nice if the Book of Mormon only claimed to be a religious text. But it claims to be REAL history. And REAL historical events leave real evidence. If the historical information, which can be examined is found lacking, why should I buy the religious claims, which cannot?
Get DNA facts before deciding | 7:46 a.m. Dec. 5, 2007
I suggest that those not familiar with the DNA issue, get a good overview by
watching the video "DNA vs. the Book of Mormon". Just Google the
phrase. You can watch it online for free. The producer's web site has
answers to many of the common challenges too (several of which have already been
posted in comments here). It's posted on YouTube also.
Warning: "attack the source" comments will probably follow from others.
Warning: "attack the source" comments will probably follow from others.
Goodgeye | 10:51 p.m. Dec. 13, 2007
I'm disturbed about the fact that religion by its nature offers no room for
debate (especially in this format). When science is entered in to verify truth,
and there is disparity, it does need to be dealt with. Truth will stand on its
own, it's only error that fears freedom of expression. There are many
things unprovable but there should be evidence that eventually surfaces to
corroborate the story not stand contrary to it. Especially when you're
investing time, talents, money, time away from your family. Some of the
comments lack an open desire to consider new information. Hardest thing to open
is a closed mind. I think it doesn't hurt to question things when things
like this come up.
Goodgeye | 11:15 p.m. Dec. 13, 2007
I think ther's a point that should be made. If the church didn't have
mounting pressures regarding DNA evidence that seems obvious there are things
claimed that are problematic, they wouldn't have ever taken such measures
to change something so seemingly minute. There's got to be a reason.
I'm disappointed they didn't give an explanation in conference. Those
who contribute should know where they stand and why. Just as I think they
should disclose financials and keep things open in order to build trust with its
members. No wonder there are many that are scratching their heads. I trust
much better those organizations that give thorough explanatives to keep
controvery at bay because of its intention of being forthright with a
willingness to be candid at all times. Shouldn't this be expected? Or
should we always just blindly let our faith trump factual information? Could
our previou confirmations of the spirit have come from a different source than
what we had thought? How are we to know for sure? There are some things science
can resolve. Maybe we should consider those findings when in there is doubt.
It's only our existence that depends on it.
Interesting how... | 1:29 a.m. Dec. 14, 2007
the truth can change so conveniently. This change and others, however subtle, is
not a matter of line upon line, it is a matter of damage control. How fortunate
it is for the church to have so many unquestioning followers blinded by faith.
It is, after all, how it continues to survive. Let the sheep believe that they
are free to choose but make them an offer they just cannot refuse - lets see,
ummmm Salvation, or ummmmm eternal damnation. Not much of a choice is it?
Some here contend | 8:45 a.m. Dec. 14, 2007
that DNA evidence should not be trusted due to lack of a control group. Where,
by the way, is the contol group when evaluating spiritial evidence? Silly me,
for a moment I forgot that things of the spirit do not require a control group
because all one has to do is pray and receive a warm fuzzy feeling. If
comparisons are going to be made, the same standard should be applied to both
sides of the argument. Apologists seem to have no problem employing the same
faulty logic that they accuse others of using against them. Talk about circular
logic, lol.
Goodgeye | 6:59 a.m. Dec. 20, 2007
monilee, the Bible has questionable things to it just as any document that old
and ancient typically would. However, Joseph Smith can be much more easily
researched and examined since his work is less than 2 centuries. I agree that
the Bible is contrdictory, however it does have some evidence that perhaps
verify the people and regions existed. If you look at hat Joseph Smith claimed
honestly, one would have to deduce his work to be self-serving and mythical. I
hate to say that as I wanted to believe, but my faith and feelings can't
supercede the facts. Any rational person who does their homework will always
find the same thing: the facts do NOT support the story. In this crazy world,
it would've been nice to know that we had things figured out for the next
life. At his point it's hard to trust any organized religion realizing
most are obviously set up to aggrandize the people at the top and let the lower
tiers finance it. If God exists, I don't need someone w/no bigger brain
than mine to help me interpret. Everyone should use their God-given intellect
to figure out the sad reality and do their homework.
Just a question? | 12:21 p.m. Jan. 17, 2008
Wasn't the change made to the introduction originally written in 1981?
It's not an issue for me that a word was changed for clarity.
Pawloski | 11:45 p.m. Jan. 27, 2008
The Book of Mormon is an ancient record, written by prophets for the eternal
advantage of future generations. What benefit? �To invite
all mankind to come unto Christ.� Baring this in mind, the
phrase under dispute, found in the 1981 edition (as well as in other editions)
reads, �the principle ancestors of the American
Indians�. The work
�principle�, as used above, does not
emphatically state that there were no other groups living on the ancient
American continent. A close study of the text validates the multi-migration
theory. Consider the book of Jacob (Ch. 7), Ether (Ch. 2-6), both clearly state
that there were various groups of people living upon the land. For the purposes
of the Book of Mormon, the Nephites and the Lamanites are principle to
its� contents.
The truthfulness of the Book cannot be determined by a scientific study, nor by an archaeological find. Truth can only be received by and through the source of all truth. That source was the author, the Savior and Redeemer of mankind, namely Christ Jesus.
The truthfulness of the Book cannot be determined by a scientific study, nor by an archaeological find. Truth can only be received by and through the source of all truth. That source was the author, the Savior and Redeemer of mankind, namely Christ Jesus.
who | 2:38 p.m. March 17, 2008
Yeah, really. Why should one change matter? After all, it's only one of
thousands of changes to a supposedly perfect book. Wait a minute...
Maybe the difference between Joe's errors and biblical variations is that bible variations can be ascribed to translation/copying errors.
Joe's book doesn't carry this prerogative...it is claimed (by the supposed prophet) to be *translated divinely.*
He probably shouldn't have said that...
Maybe the difference between Joe's errors and biblical variations is that bible variations can be ascribed to translation/copying errors.
Joe's book doesn't carry this prerogative...it is claimed (by the supposed prophet) to be *translated divinely.*
He probably shouldn't have said that...
Steve | 2:11 a.m. June 8, 2009
The thing that anyone looking at this issue should probably consider is WHO the
Lamanites were. According to the Book of Mormon, around the time of Jacob (Jacob
1:14 - look it up), the word "Lamanite" was used as a generic term
much like the word "Gentile" is used in the Bible. They used the word
"Lamanite" to describe anyone who was unfriendly to the Nephites and
the word "Nephite" to describe anyone who was friendly to the
Nephites. So technically, if Mayans were enemies to the Nephites, they would
have been called "Lamanites" as well. I think the old word
"principle" was probably correct, but the new wording
'among' is probably more technically correct. I welcome the change. We
can't go blaming the prophets by shouting: "THEY SHOULD HAVE
KNOWN!" because this particular information has never been revealed,
they're only trying to describe what seems reasonable. Now if the into
said: "and they are the ONLY ancestors of the American Indians." well,
then that would be a another story now wouldn't it.
Skeptical | 9:01 p.m. Sept. 6, 2009
To answer those who ask: "why is this significant?": The research
shows that 99% of the American Indians can trace ancestry back to Asia
(Mongolia, Siberia) and the other 1% can trace it back to Europe (mostly Spain).
Now where are the American Indians that are "among" any ancestry from
Jerusalem? They don't exist!
To those who say the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon should be based on confirmation through the spirit: shouldn't the science back up that spiritual confirmation? There is no science to back up the Book of Mormon and there is certainly NO evidence to confirm the Book of Abraham!
To go along with something because of spirituality is in no way wrong, but science and spirituality should not conflict. Find real truth.
To those who say the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon should be based on confirmation through the spirit: shouldn't the science back up that spiritual confirmation? There is no science to back up the Book of Mormon and there is certainly NO evidence to confirm the Book of Abraham!
To go along with something because of spirituality is in no way wrong, but science and spirituality should not conflict. Find real truth.
- Page:
- < Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- Swine flu vaccine available to all 7:12 p.m.
- Boy hit by car after sledding 6:51 p.m.
- Health care exchange not taking off 6:22 p.m.
- No prison for couple in scheme 6:21 p.m.
- Sources say Halladay to Phillies 5:55 p.m.
- House gives Real honor 5:53 p.m.
- Church museum has Latin exhibits 5:52 p.m.
- Streetcars could pump life into city 5:51 p.m.
- Sources: Josh Powell hires attorney 5:35 p.m.
- Gray dances away with dignity 5:17 p.m.
- Wet spot found in Powell's home
- Sources: Josh Powell hires attorney
- Y. opponent nearly smelled roses
- D-Will treats military families to party
- MWC looks better in basketball
- Maynor amazed by L.A. fans
- Pace happy not to be noticed
- High school football: All-region teams
- Jazz Extra: Starting 5
- BYU singers compete in 'Sing Off'
- Palin signs books, chats with fans
178 - Nude bathers cited for lewdness152
- Gay-friendly curriculum phased out141
- LDS to emphasize helping needy125
- Jazz fall apart late at L.A.110
- Unga might enter NFL draft106
- BYU to wear royal blue uniforms101
- Disappearance called 'suspicious'96
- TV mom gives birth to 19th child95
- Choir, guests unwrap musical magic84
David Rankin, one of Utah's youngest and ablest astrophotographers has...
There was a time when free shipping was rare. This holiday season, you...
First of all, to "20/20," how can you read newspapers and not understand...
Latest comments
I'm a little puzzled how an article about BYU and OSU has become a debate on...
Question: Do Streetcars operate on the same railroad trax as the UTA TRAX?
Maybe she can play an incoming sophomore next fall on GLEE. Break a Leg,...
Ok so all of you that think Boise State really has a right to play in any BCS...
"Furthermore, the Church views with concern the politics of fear and...
The Viennese waltz Mollee danced on this show was so beautiful it brought me...
Korver is our best shooter by far. And with Miles, Mathews and Korver...
There are lots of standards that work in industry - EnergyStar, ROHS, etc....
Great job to those competitors. These men are amazing this world will end up...
Nick is simpley the best he will be the first true freshman to lead the state...
Advertisements
Science will never have answers to the ultimate questions -- what is the purpose to life, whether there is a God, and if so, what His nature is. So those questions have to be answered by faith.
Science can, on the other hand, provide evidence as to whether a large population of Hebrews (or at least Hebrew-influenced Middle Easterners), ultimately numbering at least in the hundreds of thousands and preserving their bloodlines for at least six hundred years, built a major civilization in the Americas between about 600 B.C. and 400 A.D., raising Old World crops and animals.
The best evidence presently available indicates that this did not happen. If you've had an overwhelming, unmistakable spiritual witness that you ought to ignore this evidence, that's fine: Such a witness may itself be useful evidence to you (although not necessarily conclusive evidence).
But let's not confuse the issue: What Mormons are asked to do is not to believe despite the absence of evidence, but to believe despite abundant contrary evidence. That's different.