Reader comments
Intro change in Book of Mormon spurs discussion
245 comments | Read story
Mormon Haters | 1:54 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
Just another story for the ill-informed, biased mormon haters to bash the
Church. Get a life.
Outside observer | 1:57 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
Wow,
I stumbled on this article and the subsequent comments during my lunch break. Where I live, I have never seen so many people with such bitter animosity towards a non-militant religious group. I am embarrassed for all those attacking their fellow man simply because of their beliefs. Go find something more constructive to do with your life. Let them worship in the way they want. Historically that is why so many went to America to begin with, to free themselves from religious persecution. All this over a word change. I have various Bible versions that have radical word differences between them.
I stumbled on this article and the subsequent comments during my lunch break. Where I live, I have never seen so many people with such bitter animosity towards a non-militant religious group. I am embarrassed for all those attacking their fellow man simply because of their beliefs. Go find something more constructive to do with your life. Let them worship in the way they want. Historically that is why so many went to America to begin with, to free themselves from religious persecution. All this over a word change. I have various Bible versions that have radical word differences between them.
Comments continue below
Over 50 And A Believer | 2:01 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
I am LDS. When I went on my mission I was asked to bear my testimony after every
discussion. When I realized my testimony was what my parents had told me over
the years, I felt I couldn't bear my testimony unless I learned for myself.
So I got on my knees and asked for a testimony. And I received an answer that I
couldn't receive a testimony until I read the Book of Mormon myself. So I
read it. And when I got to Moroni 10:4-5, I received my testimony. Folks,
it's true. All this blog conversation is interresting rational deduction
and it has its place. I want to be intelligent and understand things. But
rational deduction doesn't hold a candle to having the creator tell you
personally. God lives. The Book of Mormon is true. Joseph Smith was a prophet.
And President Gordon B. Hinckley is the prophet. Whatever else may be open to
question but those 4 points are beyond question to me.
The Book is True | 2:02 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
I want all those who come in here claiming the Book of Mormon is fiction to give
me one actual viable amount of proof. All of you say that we can not prove that
it is fact; likewise you can not prove to us that it is fiction. In God there
are many mysteries that is not understood nor can be comprehended. The truth is
in the eye of the beholder. I have beheld that it is true and good.
Darrin | 2:04 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
So when did this change in the introduction come out to mean that the Lamanites
are not any part of the ancestry of the Native Americans? I thought it came out
to mean that they are no longer saying they are the "principle"
ancestors. So all this fighting over whether they are the only ancestors, or
just part of a larger group of ancestors from many different places? Oh, and is
the introduction mentioning the Indigenous peoples of Central and South America,
or simply talking about Native Americans in the US and Canada? Also, what are
the DNA studies about? Central and South Americans, or North American
Indians?
Explain Queztalcuatal in the Mayan "scripture" the Popol Vu. Did they bring the idea of a "Great White God" over from Asia? The stories of a Tree that gave life from the Mongols?
I'm waiting for science to explain where the Mayans got their stories from.
Explain Queztalcuatal in the Mayan "scripture" the Popol Vu. Did they bring the idea of a "Great White God" over from Asia? The stories of a Tree that gave life from the Mongols?
I'm waiting for science to explain where the Mayans got their stories from.
Santa Claus | 2:08 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
Hi Kids, Its Santa Claus! I sure hope you all have been good so I can bring you
your presents!
Come on people! Believing in religion is like believing in Santa Claus. You're all wrong. No religion is true. We live and we die and thats it. This whole thing about the Book of Mormon is ridiculous.
The world would be better without religion. Religion leads people to believe they are better than other people who are not of their religion. These feelings of supremacy lead to hate and hate leads to violence.
Come on people! Believing in religion is like believing in Santa Claus. You're all wrong. No religion is true. We live and we die and thats it. This whole thing about the Book of Mormon is ridiculous.
The world would be better without religion. Religion leads people to believe they are better than other people who are not of their religion. These feelings of supremacy lead to hate and hate leads to violence.
Nonsense | 2:12 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
To The Book is True | 2:02
The burden of proof is on those making the unbelievable claims that they have a book magically translated by God that tells of thousands of years of history of peoples about whom the rest of the world has never heard nor has ever found evidence.
And the only "proof" you can offer is that we should pray about it and we will get a warm feeling. By that standard Mr. Rogers, Barney the Dinosaur, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and many other silly children's stories are equally "true"!
If you Mormons are going to convert the world, you are going to have to come up with something better than that.
The burden of proof is on those making the unbelievable claims that they have a book magically translated by God that tells of thousands of years of history of peoples about whom the rest of the world has never heard nor has ever found evidence.
And the only "proof" you can offer is that we should pray about it and we will get a warm feeling. By that standard Mr. Rogers, Barney the Dinosaur, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and many other silly children's stories are equally "true"!
If you Mormons are going to convert the world, you are going to have to come up with something better than that.
Mormon4Ever | 2:36 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
It seems interesting that people from other christian religions want
"proof" of the Book of Mormon.
IF that is the case then they SHOULDN"T BELIEVE in the BIBLE neither because guess what! THere is NO scientific proof up to date of any of the events in the Bible so far. So, I tell them, keep believing on Mr. Rogers, Barney,Santa etc. that's what you see!!!
God wants His children to believe by faith not by seeing or scientific evidence. Get it?
IF that is the case then they SHOULDN"T BELIEVE in the BIBLE neither because guess what! THere is NO scientific proof up to date of any of the events in the Bible so far. So, I tell them, keep believing on Mr. Rogers, Barney,Santa etc. that's what you see!!!
God wants His children to believe by faith not by seeing or scientific evidence. Get it?
Ralph | 2:36 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
One last commentary on the "science over faith" discussion.
Science is our perceived truth as we can prove it with the understanding and our education. Theorys which make up a huge portion of science is conjecture based on a hypothosis. All this means is that we take things as we understand them and try to open our minds by experimenting with them and studying the results of our testing.
Faith on the other hand is not a whole lot different. Hypothosis in our minds what we want to beleif in, then by conducting tests we determine if something is true or not. That is how we gain faith, and I qualify faith as a belief in something that is true, never a lie (previous posting).
The clarification of the statement as printed in the BOM does not change my opinon one bit as to the truth of the BOM. "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ" [BOM preface] is the charge to everyone in the world. Heed and read!
Science is our perceived truth as we can prove it with the understanding and our education. Theorys which make up a huge portion of science is conjecture based on a hypothosis. All this means is that we take things as we understand them and try to open our minds by experimenting with them and studying the results of our testing.
Faith on the other hand is not a whole lot different. Hypothosis in our minds what we want to beleif in, then by conducting tests we determine if something is true or not. That is how we gain faith, and I qualify faith as a belief in something that is true, never a lie (previous posting).
The clarification of the statement as printed in the BOM does not change my opinon one bit as to the truth of the BOM. "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ" [BOM preface] is the charge to everyone in the world. Heed and read!
rep: to sandy | 2:41 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
Did you read and pray about the book of mormon? because there are
"proofs" that do match. The ancient aztec god of Qeutzocoatl. "A
white, bearded, God that promised to return." I don't intend that
science and timelines should be totally ignored. All I said is that the
spiritual truthfulness cannot be proven with timelines and science. All
timelines do is state that these places existed, people lived, etc. But what
lets us know that Jesus is the Christ?
What lets us know that God is there. Only the Holy Ghost. God wants us to follow by faith, not by fact.
Sorry about the CAPS. Forgot it means shouting. I just wanted to emphasize my point, not shout.
What lets us know that God is there. Only the Holy Ghost. God wants us to follow by faith, not by fact.
Sorry about the CAPS. Forgot it means shouting. I just wanted to emphasize my point, not shout.
Oneday | 2:49 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
All I can say is there will come a day and we will all know.
William McBrayer Wood | 2:51 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
Why does "another testament of Jesus Christ" need an introduction. The
Bible did not.
J. Smith | 3:04 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
To Nonesense: We aren't out to convert the world. We are out to share
something with the world that has made our lives better and has brought much
happiness to our lives. No one is twisting your arms to believe as we do.
Unfortunately there are members of the LDS church who hold on to bias' and
only want to argue with people. For most of us, we are not on some big crusade
to bring recognition to us and our religion, we love all people. We know and
understand all people to be children of our Father in Heaven.
Ben | 3:06 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
Here's the thing, either the Book of Mormon is true, or it is the biggest
lie in the history of the world. The question is, if it is a lie (Lies come
from Satan), why does it teach of Christ and help millions of people to become
closer to God and be more Christ-like?
Why would Satan author such a book? His focus is to get us further from Christ. Satan CANNOT pruduce a book that teaches such things, it is against his nature.
Why would Satan author such a book? His focus is to get us further from Christ. Satan CANNOT pruduce a book that teaches such things, it is against his nature.
Doug Barber | 3:11 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
As a non-LDS who has LDS relations and has lived in Utah, I hope I might be
permitted to add a different perspective here. I don't know what to make of
the "one word change", but it's been clear to me ever since I
lived and worked among LDS that there's something good at work in their
communities, which are characterized by self-sufficiency, neighborly support,
and a welcoming openness to well-meaning outsiders.
If there is a faith whose sacred scriptures have not had conundrums brought to light in our skeptical time, I don't know of it, and I've studied many of them in depth.
More importantly, in my view, if there's a faith which scores more highly than the LDS under a "by their fruits you will know them" standard, I haven't encountered it.
If there is a faith whose sacred scriptures have not had conundrums brought to light in our skeptical time, I don't know of it, and I've studied many of them in depth.
More importantly, in my view, if there's a faith which scores more highly than the LDS under a "by their fruits you will know them" standard, I haven't encountered it.
Viking DNA | 3:13 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
I recall a documentary I watched a few months back that indicated some northern
european genetic markers have been discovered in Native Americans.
The Book is True | 3:14 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
To Nonsense: I'm afraid that for me there is no burden of proof. I say
that I know it is true. You say you know it is false. Which one of us is
right? It is not true that no evidence has ever been found to substantiate
claims that this ancient people existed. Several experts would testify to the
contrary. While there are several experts who look at other evidence and
interpret it another way. The study of ancient artifacts and archaeological
finds is always subjective and always subject to interpretation.
Bullrider | 3:20 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
Im glad I do not live in Utah. I have never seen so much hatred of a church in
my life. The logic is gone. Some of you who follow science should read from page
10 in Archaeology. "another masticated substance to help understand the
migrations of ancient Native Americans. Quids -yucca or cornstalk fibers that
were chewed like gum tobacco - are well preserved in the arid American
Southwest. Researchers pulled from them mitochrondrial DNA more than 2000 years
old, providing an important alternative to the controversial sampling of Native
American remains. Early analysis suggests the Basketmaker II culture descended
from farmers who migrated north from Mexico."
KabulMan | 3:44 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
The Book of Mormon is at least as correct as the Bible plus some. If you ever
read the Bible in Greek or Latin you'll see it's maybe only 65-75%
accurate anyway based on the sources available. If the Book of Mormon is 85% or
more correct, more than enough to justify its purposeful study.
What cannot be denied is that the ancient Central Americans were the only ancient Americans that actually had books and writing systems. Incas didn't and the Aztecs got it from the Mayans. Did the Mayans invent writing systems spontaneously or get them from someone else as an import. I'd say the writing systems and buildings of the advanced civiliations in Central America and their later collapses do indicate something special happened there. A mis-translated comment here or there about a horse or a coin doesn't make the Book of Mormon not the word of God. I'm sure Joseph would like another shot at some of those parts. That said, the scientific leaps do force a faithful approach. I've seen the Book of Mormon change lives....all over the world. It's true in its ability to bring people to Christ and develop testimonies and understanding of God.
What cannot be denied is that the ancient Central Americans were the only ancient Americans that actually had books and writing systems. Incas didn't and the Aztecs got it from the Mayans. Did the Mayans invent writing systems spontaneously or get them from someone else as an import. I'd say the writing systems and buildings of the advanced civiliations in Central America and their later collapses do indicate something special happened there. A mis-translated comment here or there about a horse or a coin doesn't make the Book of Mormon not the word of God. I'm sure Joseph would like another shot at some of those parts. That said, the scientific leaps do force a faithful approach. I've seen the Book of Mormon change lives....all over the world. It's true in its ability to bring people to Christ and develop testimonies and understanding of God.
Wintersfootsteps | 3:59 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
Wow, it's amazing what people believe even after proof of the opposite.
Simply amazing.
Wasted Energy | 4:00 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
I read three comments and had seen enough. ALL of you, PLEASE go do something
productive. Regardless of your belief, you all have the ability to actually add
some value to society.
Anonymous | 4:17 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
To KabulMan | 3:44 p.m.
I have read the Bible in both the original Greek and 2 Latin translations, among others. You are wrong to say "it's maybe only 65-75% accurate anyway."
Please don't comment on things about which you know so little.
I have read the Bible in both the original Greek and 2 Latin translations, among others. You are wrong to say "it's maybe only 65-75% accurate anyway."
Please don't comment on things about which you know so little.
Herb | 4:55 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
Gee, What is new? I have a orignal 1830 BOM,
I have found over 2000 changes in it, as conpared
with the latest version. one little word is no big deal at all....
I have found over 2000 changes in it, as conpared
with the latest version. one little word is no big deal at all....
It doesn't matter...... | 5:03 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
I like the BOM (like I have liked many books) and it doesn't matter to me
if it's "true". It can be true or doesn't need to be....it
is a book. The problems I have with religion don't stem directly from
books. The practices of many religions and how they interpret these things is my
problem. The problem I have with the church you're speaking of
doesn't have hardly anything to do with the BOM. They have lots of other
beliefs that has nothing to do with that book and that have hurt me. This leaves
me being spiritual, but not religious and loving God not any certain teaching.
Rick | 5:05 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
The Book of Mormon is true. The introduction is not scripture, it is only an
introduction. The Book of Mormon talks about many people coming to this country
through out time, so yes the lamanites could not only be the principle
ancecetors of the American Indians, but I'm sure that many tribes have ties
to them. To those who doubt the Book of Mormon please read it with both eyes
open. Probably most of you have never read it as well as the bible. Look at
the articles of faith it even says we believe the bible as far as it is
translated correctly and we believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
There is richness to both scriptures and they both testify of Jesus Christ. The
work will go on. The couple of words that were changed in the introduction
discredit nothing towards the Book of Mormon. Please if you have never read the
Book of Mormon read it with a prayerful heart wanting to know if it is true. I
agree with Joseph Smith when he said the Book of Mormon was the most correct
book on the face of the earth.
Henry | 5:19 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
The world's foremost authority on archaeology is the Smithsonian
Institution. A few years ago, supporters of the LDS Church started issuing
statements that the Smithsonian was using the Book of Mormon as a scientific
guide.
In response the Smithsonian Institution issued the following statement: "The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book."
That's a polite way of saying that the Book of Mormon is a hoax. In simple terms, modern scientific evidence contradicts the Book of Mormon.
In response the Smithsonian Institution issued the following statement: "The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book."
That's a polite way of saying that the Book of Mormon is a hoax. In simple terms, modern scientific evidence contradicts the Book of Mormon.
eneliko | 5:20 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
Just get on knees with a sincere heart and ask God if the Book Of Mormon is
True...simple as that.
Dark skin myth | 5:21 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
The church or the Book of Mormon has never taught that dark skin was a curse,
though many have taken that interpretation. The scriptures state that the dark
skin was a mark, put upon groups of people to distinguish them from other
groups. The curse comes from rebelling against God, and falls on fair skinned
individuals as well as dark skinned individuals. Why did these groups need to
be distinguished one from another? God only knows.
Anonymous | 5:21 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
If golden plates were planted in a forest and nobody was around to find them -
you know the rest.
Yes, Science is Great! | 5:40 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
I mean, it explains all about atoms, oops, I mean electrons and nuetrons, oops,
I mean quarks, oops, I mean... Get my point? Science is always changing, proving
it's self wrong. READ HISTORY!
What's wrong with you? | 5:43 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
This is crazy!
God gave certain people melanin pigment so the sun wouldn't burn them up!
God gave certain people melanin pigment so the sun wouldn't burn them up!
Remay1 | 5:55 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
Who ever thought the Book of Mormon said that the descendents of one family were
the direct ancestors of all of the people in North and South America? It
doesn't say that anywhere in the text of the book. Fifty years ago I knew
that the Eskimos in Alaska and those who live in Siberia, who speak a related
language were not the descendents of Lehi. Duh!
This really is much ado about nothing!
This really is much ado about nothing!
Anonymous | 6:03 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
To Ben | 3:06 p.m.
Apparently, Mormons believe that "the great whore of all the earth" if not produced the Bible, at least corrupted it! So you are wrong. Satan CAN (according to Mormons) produce a book that teaches about Jesus!
Apparently, Mormons believe that "the great whore of all the earth" if not produced the Bible, at least corrupted it! So you are wrong. Satan CAN (according to Mormons) produce a book that teaches about Jesus!
Yeah, that's right | 6:03 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
God gave (or nature...however one wants to believe) adaption to environments.
The problem is when someone tries to say that someone was "cursed" or not equal to someone else because of skin color. Most of the world is a different color than "white and delightsom" so this gives a clue towards the origin of this thought.
Men's minds might be prejudice, not God's mind.
The problem is when someone tries to say that someone was "cursed" or not equal to someone else because of skin color. Most of the world is a different color than "white and delightsom" so this gives a clue towards the origin of this thought.
Men's minds might be prejudice, not God's mind.
Anti-Science | 6:06 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
Mormons just keep looking more and more foolish as they continue to scramble to
retain belief in the face of science, fact, and knowledge.
If we are lucky, it won't take long for everyone to stop listening to Mormons altogether. Then perhaps they will pack up their Church, board the mother ship, and return to Kolob!
Pray for the day!
If we are lucky, it won't take long for everyone to stop listening to Mormons altogether. Then perhaps they will pack up their Church, board the mother ship, and return to Kolob!
Pray for the day!
Thomas | 6:10 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
"Science is great!" -- Sir, you're pointing to one of
science's great strengths, not a weakness.
You gave the the example of particle physics. Science began by identifying the basic principle of atomic theory -- and then refined our understanding, filling in more and more details about how that theory operates. The discovery of electrons, quarks, etc. doesn't prove atomic theory wrong, any more than a detailed street map "disproves" a large-scale map that just shows major highways.
Science has the advantage of being self-correcting. The process doesn't always work, because people are fallible and sometimes confuse their personal biases with the evidence (see Sagan, Carl and Hansen, James) -- but ultimately, the truth does tend to come out. A theory either fits the evidence, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, no matter how time-honored the theory, there will always be some ambitious geek eager to make a name for himself by demonstrating a flaw in the conventional wisdom. Thus the mistakes in science get progressively ground down.
Religion doesn't have the same self-correcting mechanism.
You gave the the example of particle physics. Science began by identifying the basic principle of atomic theory -- and then refined our understanding, filling in more and more details about how that theory operates. The discovery of electrons, quarks, etc. doesn't prove atomic theory wrong, any more than a detailed street map "disproves" a large-scale map that just shows major highways.
Science has the advantage of being self-correcting. The process doesn't always work, because people are fallible and sometimes confuse their personal biases with the evidence (see Sagan, Carl and Hansen, James) -- but ultimately, the truth does tend to come out. A theory either fits the evidence, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, no matter how time-honored the theory, there will always be some ambitious geek eager to make a name for himself by demonstrating a flaw in the conventional wisdom. Thus the mistakes in science get progressively ground down.
Religion doesn't have the same self-correcting mechanism.
Bruce B. | 6:13 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
DNA Science is being bashed and dismissed by a number of Mormon apologists in
these comments.
But if DNA science wasn't valid and reliable, there would have been no need for the Church leaders to have changed the introduction wording from "principal" to "among"!
So, apparently the Mormon Church leaders believe more in science than their uninformed followers.
Good thing the followers have some smart people to do their thinking for them!
But if DNA science wasn't valid and reliable, there would have been no need for the Church leaders to have changed the introduction wording from "principal" to "among"!
So, apparently the Mormon Church leaders believe more in science than their uninformed followers.
Good thing the followers have some smart people to do their thinking for them!
MikeW | 6:18 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
Would someone please tell me how this change could possibly take "into
account details...which are not known." How can you take something into
account when you know nothing about it?
Please, church leaders, tell me what I'm supposed to believe.
Please, church leaders, tell me what I'm supposed to believe.
Jody H | 6:22 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
Here again goes the debate. This will never be resolved. It is up to each
individual to chose whom and what they believe and then be at peace with their
decision. With that peace comes the ability to let others make their own
decisions. This is not the forum to spew hate one way or another.
I am a member of the church who through reading the BOM have gained a greater understanding of the love the Savior has for all people.
It is spiritual doctrine that is the message of the book, not geography, skin color or ancestry. If the book brings you peace great, if not, that is okay.
Can all sides let it go.........
I am a member of the church who through reading the BOM have gained a greater understanding of the love the Savior has for all people.
It is spiritual doctrine that is the message of the book, not geography, skin color or ancestry. If the book brings you peace great, if not, that is okay.
Can all sides let it go.........
Tony | 8:50 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
Good to see this change made. Heard about this possibly happening years ago.
Turns out my friend was right.
It's a good move.
It's a good move.
Troy-Vegas | 9:10 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
Many Latter-day Saints, both past and present, have perhaps incorrectly assumed
that the Americas were totally unpopulated prior to Lehi's arrival, and
that Lehi's decendents are represented by all tribes of the Native
Americans. However, Church leaders have for a long time warned us not to make
this assumption.
For example, in 1929 Anthony W. Ivins of the First Presidency told Latter-day Saints:
"We must be careful in the conclusions that we reach. The Book of Mormon teaches the history of three distinct peoples, or two peoples and three different colonies of people, who came from the old world to this continent. It does not tell us that there was no one here before them. It does not tell us that people did not come after. And so if discoveries are made which suggest differences in race origins, it can very easily be accounted for, and reasonably, for we do believe that other people came to this continent." (Ivins, 1929, p. 15) Ivins, Anthony W., LDS Conference Report, April 1929, p. 15.
Among other examples without room for here.
For example, in 1929 Anthony W. Ivins of the First Presidency told Latter-day Saints:
"We must be careful in the conclusions that we reach. The Book of Mormon teaches the history of three distinct peoples, or two peoples and three different colonies of people, who came from the old world to this continent. It does not tell us that there was no one here before them. It does not tell us that people did not come after. And so if discoveries are made which suggest differences in race origins, it can very easily be accounted for, and reasonably, for we do believe that other people came to this continent." (Ivins, 1929, p. 15) Ivins, Anthony W., LDS Conference Report, April 1929, p. 15.
Among other examples without room for here.
Parker | 11:27 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
To those who have left the LDS church:
That was certainly your choice to do, but no need to try and drag everyone else down your alley of disbelief. Of course some are going to fall away for whatever reason--Zeezrom and Korihor are prime examples of this process. Get a little learning and you think you know it all. If you feel better off without the LDS church in your life, I would surmise that it is probably because there were other issues in your life that you hadn't dealt with honestly. This would be why you would now feel greater peace within yourself, by not having to confront those issues and instead by side-stepping them.
As to this change, I think it more closely matches the actual text of the Book of Mormon, so I view it as a welcome clarification. Remember also that the seed of Abraham is "sprinkled" among all nations, so it was not unreasonable to tell any Native American that they were "Lamanite" descendants, since a broader meaning of that term is "a descendant of the House of Israel whose ancestors migrated to the Americas".
That was certainly your choice to do, but no need to try and drag everyone else down your alley of disbelief. Of course some are going to fall away for whatever reason--Zeezrom and Korihor are prime examples of this process. Get a little learning and you think you know it all. If you feel better off without the LDS church in your life, I would surmise that it is probably because there were other issues in your life that you hadn't dealt with honestly. This would be why you would now feel greater peace within yourself, by not having to confront those issues and instead by side-stepping them.
As to this change, I think it more closely matches the actual text of the Book of Mormon, so I view it as a welcome clarification. Remember also that the seed of Abraham is "sprinkled" among all nations, so it was not unreasonable to tell any Native American that they were "Lamanite" descendants, since a broader meaning of that term is "a descendant of the House of Israel whose ancestors migrated to the Americas".
Science | 11:35 p.m. Nov. 9, 2007
When I read these comments by LDS members and non-LDS members alike, I feel
sorry for both. Neither seem to open there minds up to the spirit of
revelation. God talks to us all. You will find that as you study all walks of
life (science, religion, life, etc) that as you learn truths, and study it out
in your mind and in your heart, that those things that are right will intwine
into a very inner meshwork of beliefs. The sad thing is when we feel we have
found all truth and stop seeking. I am a member of the LDS faith and I have
read the Book of Mormon severall times, its true. But, I am not afraid to
discuss science or beliefs with other. As I spoke with a pastor (near Bob Jones
University) in SC one day about faith and works, he helped me understand what I
do believe about the subject. Most things in life do have truth, whether you
like it or not. Open your minds up to truth and revelation and you will find
it. Falsehoods will fail. You truly seek, you will truly find.
G'day Bruce | 2:56 a.m. Nov. 10, 2007
For heaven's sake people, it is McConkie .... NOT McKonkie. And no,
Mormons aren't asked to PONDOR, whatever the heck that is.
Randall | 6:10 a.m. Nov. 10, 2007
I enjoy these back-and-forths. Sure, they get heated, but the internet allows
for broad-based, interactive, and real-time dialogue like no other medium.
My thoughts are as follows: The BOM provides helpful insights and can make for a good read (other than the war chapters in Alma).
I used to believe it as inspired word of God, and for many years had a strong testimony confirmed to me by several spiritual experiences. Now, I no longer interpret those experiences in the same way and my doubts about the veracity of the book and the claims of Joseph Smith have outweighed my faith. It's not a hateful or angry thing, just a shift in my belief.
The BOM and Joseph Smith brought some wonderful things to our world, but at the end of the day, they are not what they purported to be. And, in my mind, that is the sine qua non of religious truth.
My thoughts are as follows: The BOM provides helpful insights and can make for a good read (other than the war chapters in Alma).
I used to believe it as inspired word of God, and for many years had a strong testimony confirmed to me by several spiritual experiences. Now, I no longer interpret those experiences in the same way and my doubts about the veracity of the book and the claims of Joseph Smith have outweighed my faith. It's not a hateful or angry thing, just a shift in my belief.
The BOM and Joseph Smith brought some wonderful things to our world, but at the end of the day, they are not what they purported to be. And, in my mind, that is the sine qua non of religious truth.
Interesting Item | 7:41 a.m. Nov. 10, 2007
Just want to add two cents here.
I wish I could identify the TV show, (on Discovery Channel I believe) I saw not but a few weeks ago on the supposed migration of peoples across the Bering Sea to help populate the Americas. Seems some very bright scientists are now disagreeing with the idea that the American Indians are related to any peoples of the far east (Mongoliams, etc.). These are not Mormon Scientists, and are they are not of course concerned with Laminite origins (or existence). They seem to believe that that the DNA trail leads them back to people from the middle east or there abouts. I guess the jury is still out? Funny how the truth portrayed by Science can change over time.
If you want to believe in Science fine. You evolved from Monkey's or better yet from little brainless creatures that crawled out of the sea. Science says you did, it must be truth. For me even if you think I am diluted to ignore the truth of evolution as taught by science, I continue to believe that You, I and all of our forefathers were created by a loving God!
I wish I could identify the TV show, (on Discovery Channel I believe) I saw not but a few weeks ago on the supposed migration of peoples across the Bering Sea to help populate the Americas. Seems some very bright scientists are now disagreeing with the idea that the American Indians are related to any peoples of the far east (Mongoliams, etc.). These are not Mormon Scientists, and are they are not of course concerned with Laminite origins (or existence). They seem to believe that that the DNA trail leads them back to people from the middle east or there abouts. I guess the jury is still out? Funny how the truth portrayed by Science can change over time.
If you want to believe in Science fine. You evolved from Monkey's or better yet from little brainless creatures that crawled out of the sea. Science says you did, it must be truth. For me even if you think I am diluted to ignore the truth of evolution as taught by science, I continue to believe that You, I and all of our forefathers were created by a loving God!
Unrighteous Judge? | 8:31 a.m. Nov. 10, 2007
Parker | 11:27 p.m.
You see, yours is exactly the arrogant, closed-minded attitude that gives Mormons a bad name. Just because someone doesn't believe the same way you do, you "surmise that it is probably because there were other issues in your life that you hadn't dealt with honestly."
And you patronizingly say it is "OK" if someone wants to go down their own "alley of disbelief" - it isn't an alley of DIS belief; it is an alley of DIFFERENT belief! But you judge them negatively.
That is unrighteous judgment! You are wrong! People can learn and grow and change AWAY from the LDS Church and still be GOOD PEOPLE! Leaving the LDS Church is NOT A SIN.
The sooner LDS people get over these self-absorbed, arrogant ways, the better off the world will be.
You see, yours is exactly the arrogant, closed-minded attitude that gives Mormons a bad name. Just because someone doesn't believe the same way you do, you "surmise that it is probably because there were other issues in your life that you hadn't dealt with honestly."
And you patronizingly say it is "OK" if someone wants to go down their own "alley of disbelief" - it isn't an alley of DIS belief; it is an alley of DIFFERENT belief! But you judge them negatively.
That is unrighteous judgment! You are wrong! People can learn and grow and change AWAY from the LDS Church and still be GOOD PEOPLE! Leaving the LDS Church is NOT A SIN.
The sooner LDS people get over these self-absorbed, arrogant ways, the better off the world will be.
Reality | 8:53 a.m. Nov. 10, 2007
Perhaps some one will explain why the Desert News censors mention of churchs
being tax exempt institutions and therefore church action and presense being of
interest to most american taxpayers and of public concern.
Jerrie | 9:01 a.m. Nov. 10, 2007
There is this guy name Jerry that writes sarcastic comments, and has this moral
superiority complex. I bet this guy isn't bitter about anything. ~
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.
- Mitchell called intelligent, controlling 1:19 a.m.
- Brems outlasts 2nd round of votes 1:04 a.m.
- 2 families divided over slaying 1:04 a.m.
- Teen shot in scuffle with trooper 1:03 a.m.
- Nature's Way leaving Utah County 1:03 a.m.
- 'Grandfamilies' a growing trend 12:31 a.m.
- 'Cyber Monday' sales top records 12:29 a.m.
- 2 citations issued at Y.-U. game 12:26 a.m.
- No drugs in driver of Am.F. band bus 12:15 a.m.
- Governor Mansion to begin free tours 12:14 a.m.
- Hall's pain reflects self-betrayal
- Y. student vanished in China
- Utes won't respond to Hall
- Hall reprimanded by MWC
- Max Hall issues apology
- Cougs begin bowl preparations
- Mitchell called intelligent, controlling
- Teen shot in scuffle with trooper
- Matthews passes new Jazz tests
- Daughter: Mitchell fed me my pet
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah
898 - Cougars beat Utes in overtime481
- Max Hall issues apology379
- Hall reprimanded by MWC370
- Hall's pain reflects self-betrayal316
- Utes won't respond to Hall257
- BYU is champion of the state140
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies121
- Cave to be sealed with body inside120
- Religion in politics is tiresome110
Live 'Twittologue' Dec. 2, 4:00 p.m. with Jason Chaffetz. Click for more.
I wanted to tell them not to go. I dropped subtle hints. "My money is on...
When I was a kid, I worshipped my grandpa. He was undoubtedly my hero....
Latest comments
There are some games I love not on your list. Arkham Asylum for one.
Our parents made my brothers help kill and clean our rabbits before we ate...
Why would you keep it open? I would understand if there was a lot of amazing...
The government will run our health care well? Read Reader's Digest, November...
TCU stomped on the MWC so they are naturally ready to crush Florida, Alabama...
could you understand Dave Locke any more than my mom does and she is not even...
Attending the ND/BYU game 3 years ago in south bend, a couple of things stuck...
I missed the game, actually i heard a little bit of Locke on the radio (man...
quotes were good: Article was dumb and unnecessary.
I believe the art depicting Joseph looking at the plates may possibly be...
Advertisements
I think those alternative suggestions are less likely than not. I think the evidence is inconclusive to state as absolute, certain truth that Joseph Smith could not have written the Book of Mormon himself. (It would have been a remarkable accomplishment -- but remarkable accomplishments don't require supernatural explanations. For example, I simply can't explain how the delegates at the Constitutional Convention managed to consume the absolutely colossal amount of alcohol at the post-signing party that their bar bill said they did -- but there it is.)
On the other hand, even if the rational evidence for the Book of Mormon runs 90% and 10% against (I think that's overstated -- it's more like 75-25 against), if a person has had such a profound mystical experience that he can be convinced it's a confirmation from God himself, and not just something that any other religious person feels about his own religion, then that would go a very long way.
Keep in mind, though, that not everyone who asks God for such an answer experiences such a thing. And instantly accusing such a person of unrighteousness, insincerity, dishonesty etc. speaks poorly of you.