Reader comments
Intro change in Book of Mormon spurs discussion
245 comments | Read story
AFGuy | 9:15 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
Wow. All you anti's are quite pleased, aren't you? A small
insignificant word (significant, however, to anti-Mormons out to destroy
Mormonism and all the good that comes with it) is changed in the title page of
the most correct book and you are in an uproar. All you anti's need to
start focusing on your own faith and leave us to worship what, where, and how we
may!
Tom | 9:19 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
If someone could create such detailed fiction like Lord of the Rings or
'Potter', is it that much of a stretch to say someone could construct
the Book of Mormon?
Comments continue below
Not a Big Deal | 9:19 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
The Book says that it is the MOST CORRECT of any book on earth, it doesn't
say it is the only PERFECT book on earth. It's purpose is to have people
believe more in Christ and to instill faith in them of the Latter-day
Restoration, which it does quite well.
This is a non-issue.
This is a non-issue.
Pogo | 9:24 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
LDS missionaries have been teaching the native peoples in South America for many
decades that the B of M is a record of the history of their ancestors (I assume
they still do). Is anyone going back to correct this and say that they just may
be somewhat related to the Lamanites?
Onan | 9:29 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
Some of you need to stop justifying changes by citing mistakes in biblical
translations & compilations. As every one knows, the bible has had many
different compilations and editions.
The Book of Mormon claims to have had ONE translation by a person with no education, therefore it was translated by the power of God. How could there be mistakes in it under those circumstances?
The Book of Mormon claims to have had ONE translation by a person with no education, therefore it was translated by the power of God. How could there be mistakes in it under those circumstances?
Outside vs. inside | 9:30 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
When people are comfortable discerning revelation for themselves they will be
more content and filled with a sense of freedom.
But far too many focus on the external: (God is far away somewhere) rather than the internal:
"The kingdom of heaven is right here - but man will not see it."
But far too many focus on the external: (God is far away somewhere) rather than the internal:
"The kingdom of heaven is right here - but man will not see it."
Saddened | 9:32 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
We certainly have wise newspapers--they know anything associated with the LDS
church will sell papers to those for and against. May those of you seeking
peace find it, and may we members of the LDS church exercise patience and good
judgment when dealing with the opinions expressed. Now let's focus on how
to attain world peace.
Wintersfootsteps | 9:32 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
The Book of Mormon has been in debate since it was written, and people that
challenge the Joseph Smith being a prophet of God have been told they have
"no faith" and to pray to find out if the Book of Mormon is true or
not. Thing is... prayer doesn't solve the problems this book has.
The Church has very carefully told Mormons that reading certain material is "anti-Mormon" and to do so will open the door for doubt. What they are not telling you is that these very "anti-Mormon" materials are not anti-Mormon, they are the truth. They are historical documents and scientific studies.
God gave me a brain to use, and I would be doing Him a great disservice by letting someone do my thinking for me. I honestly believe that goes for everyone. Many people that come to the defense of Mormonism end up realizing that their faith isn't what the leaders make it out to be.
This small yet important change shows that the Church knows they have some explaining to do if they want people to believe in the Book of Mormon. Science disagrees with the book. Who would you believe?
The Church has very carefully told Mormons that reading certain material is "anti-Mormon" and to do so will open the door for doubt. What they are not telling you is that these very "anti-Mormon" materials are not anti-Mormon, they are the truth. They are historical documents and scientific studies.
God gave me a brain to use, and I would be doing Him a great disservice by letting someone do my thinking for me. I honestly believe that goes for everyone. Many people that come to the defense of Mormonism end up realizing that their faith isn't what the leaders make it out to be.
This small yet important change shows that the Church knows they have some explaining to do if they want people to believe in the Book of Mormon. Science disagrees with the book. Who would you believe?
Joe Moe | 9:37 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
To NauvooChristian and other unbelievers:
It is fair for you to believe the Book of Mormon is fiction, as long as you can be civil about your disagreement with believers. I believe the Book is true. I have re-evaluated that belief many times, because I am a rational with extensive education in psychology and science. Yet I always come back to the same conclusion: it is undeniable for me. And it is the single most extraordinary and positive influence in my life, because it led me to Jesus Christ and keeps me there.
I wonder, though, have YOU ever re-evaluated your DISBELIEF? Or did you settle your belief long ago, and you're not interested in considering again? I hope you find the courage to re-evaluate your faith. It can be frightening, but it should be done, by all of us.
It is fair for you to believe the Book of Mormon is fiction, as long as you can be civil about your disagreement with believers. I believe the Book is true. I have re-evaluated that belief many times, because I am a rational with extensive education in psychology and science. Yet I always come back to the same conclusion: it is undeniable for me. And it is the single most extraordinary and positive influence in my life, because it led me to Jesus Christ and keeps me there.
I wonder, though, have YOU ever re-evaluated your DISBELIEF? Or did you settle your belief long ago, and you're not interested in considering again? I hope you find the courage to re-evaluate your faith. It can be frightening, but it should be done, by all of us.
John | 9:40 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
I'm certainly glad that my faith doesn't rise or fall on the changing
of one word originally put in the introduction by a man and then corrected by
another man.
Jerry | 9:40 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
Yes, there are numerous other perfect books. Some perfectly correct like the BoM
and others perfectly incorrect, like anything other than the BoM.
Mike | 9:40 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
Everyone GROW UP!!!
The introduction was written by Bruce R. McConkie back in the mid 1980's when the new edition of the Book of Mormon came out. I have never thought of the introduction as scripture, just information and commentary. The scriptural part starts with 1 Nephi.
So what's the big deal that they changed one word in the non-scriptual part of the overall book? Does it take away from the scriptual aspect of the book or it's truth? Not in the least.
The introduction was written by Bruce R. McConkie back in the mid 1980's when the new edition of the Book of Mormon came out. I have never thought of the introduction as scripture, just information and commentary. The scriptural part starts with 1 Nephi.
So what's the big deal that they changed one word in the non-scriptual part of the overall book? Does it take away from the scriptual aspect of the book or it's truth? Not in the least.
Tim | 9:41 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
The revised statement is still wrong, because there are no Hebrew DNA markers
among the Native population of the US. The claim that in time those markers are
lost is just foolishness. There are Etheopians who claimed to have Hebrew
heritage. They were tested and it was proven they in fact did have Hebrew DNA,
probably dating back to the time of Solomon. They have been migrating to Israel
ever since. A much longer period that from the time of Christ.
Dakotah | 9:42 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
So just who were the "Lamanites" I was preaching 'the
gospel' to as an LDS missionary years ago? Maybe this latest DNA info is
the real reason so many of the 'Lamanite missions' have been shut
down?
It may be one word but it is an encyclopedia of change.
It may be one word but it is an encyclopedia of change.
metaphorically speaking | 9:44 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
When all religious people can see symbols and metaphor everywhere instead of focusing on historicity - they will be happier and more fulfilled.
Hard to believe there are STILL those who literally believe in a "talking snake."
To: 1954 knocking on your door | 9:48 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
You're talking about a government issue not a church issue. How would Utah
being the last state to allow Native Americans the right to vote have anything
to do with a church entity?
The account remains the same | 9:53 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
If the Book of Mormon is not true, than Jesus of the Bible is not the Christ,
because both scriptures testify of the same Jesus. Both scriptures support and
testify of each other, as well. And both books are not the conclusive accounts
of all of God's dealings with man. We just don't have all those
accounts. Of the accounts we do have, and with all the changes the Bible has
undergone, it just happens that the Book of Mormon remains the most correct
book.
The change in the introduction to the Book of Mormon acknowledges that the Bible and the Book of Mormon are not the conclusive accounts of all the people who have inhabited the Earth. The previous introduction only took in account the fact that we only have one record of the ancient inhabitants of America, the Book of Mormon, and those people very well could be the principle ancestors of the American Indians, but the record itself never makes this claim. We don't know all the people of the Earth, but we do know that the Bible and the Book of Mormon are accountings among some of our predecessors on two continents of the Earth.
The change in the introduction to the Book of Mormon acknowledges that the Bible and the Book of Mormon are not the conclusive accounts of all the people who have inhabited the Earth. The previous introduction only took in account the fact that we only have one record of the ancient inhabitants of America, the Book of Mormon, and those people very well could be the principle ancestors of the American Indians, but the record itself never makes this claim. We don't know all the people of the Earth, but we do know that the Bible and the Book of Mormon are accountings among some of our predecessors on two continents of the Earth.
Eric | 9:53 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
"Many migratory groups came to the Americas, but none was as important as
the three mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The blood of these people flows in
the veins of ... [many] native American groups in the Western Hemisphere and the
Pacific islands."
--Elder Ted E. Brewerton, Emeritus Seventy in October 1995 General Conference, (Nov 1995 Ensign)
In case all y'all are wondering why no LDS authority has ever talked about this before.
--Elder Ted E. Brewerton, Emeritus Seventy in October 1995 General Conference, (Nov 1995 Ensign)
In case all y'all are wondering why no LDS authority has ever talked about this before.
Jerry | 9:55 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
Wow, the Adversary is indeed working overtime on these boards. If you question
the BoM, you have not read it and accepted it with an open heart. Once you open
your heart, you will be more willing to open 10% of your wallet.
prairedog | 10:00 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
To: Winterfootsteps - God gave me a brain, and a heart has well! I would be
doing Him a great disservice by not using both. Many people lose their
"faith" by trying to debunk it with science. As a research scientist
myself, I can clearly my "my brain" separate from "my faith"
and create a very meaningful life.
To the believers | 10:11 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
Just so you can understand where most of the non-believers are coming from, most
non-believers were probably believing mormons at one point in their lives.
It was just after thoughtful study of the Church's history, years without receiving a "testimony", etc., that they finally came to the conclusion that it was not true.
If they appear disgruntled it is because they feel betrayed.
I mean, come on, I spent two years walking around a European contrary telling people "this book is another testament of Jesus Christ, it is the record of the ancient inhabitants of the Americas." And now Church leaders and scholars are saying it's a non-issue and people really won't think it's that big a deal?
If people sound bitter it's probably because they've realized they've been lied to most of their lives and it's difficult to come to terms with that.
That is why so much aggression seems comes out in situations like these.
It was just after thoughtful study of the Church's history, years without receiving a "testimony", etc., that they finally came to the conclusion that it was not true.
If they appear disgruntled it is because they feel betrayed.
I mean, come on, I spent two years walking around a European contrary telling people "this book is another testament of Jesus Christ, it is the record of the ancient inhabitants of the Americas." And now Church leaders and scholars are saying it's a non-issue and people really won't think it's that big a deal?
If people sound bitter it's probably because they've realized they've been lied to most of their lives and it's difficult to come to terms with that.
That is why so much aggression seems comes out in situations like these.
Ha! | 10:13 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
The Book of Mormon is turning into THE MOST CORRECTED book!
Shelama | 10:13 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
Mormons are not the only Christians whose acceptance and use of "sacred
texts" as authentic, historical, inspired or inerrant deserve close
scrutiny and comment.
On the other hand, I would be the first to admit that there is at least *some* actual history in those Christians scriptures that are accepted by all Christians.
On the other hand, I would be the first to admit that there is at least *some* actual history in those Christians scriptures that are accepted by all Christians.
Occam | 10:15 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
As someone raised as an active mormon, to say that this is not a huge concession
by the LDS Church is disingenuous at best. It was taught and stated as fact
that the american indians were the direct and principal descendants of the
Lamanites. And American Indians and others from Mexico to South America were
referred to as Lamanites in lessons and talks. So now we learn that Christ did
not love all his other "sheep" in the western hemispere, as I was told
to teach on my mission, just a small portion of them.
My LDS family members brag about how the church never changes with the wind ... well, this is another example in a long line of changes in doctrine by the LDS Church to conform with social or scientific progression. Who needs revelation when we have science?
My LDS family members brag about how the church never changes with the wind ... well, this is another example in a long line of changes in doctrine by the LDS Church to conform with social or scientific progression. Who needs revelation when we have science?
NDN on a cross | 10:17 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
Columbus had it wrong both land and name, American history is greatly distorted
..the constitution has been proven to have it's Origin with the great
Iroquois Nation, Started with someone comming into a people's backyard and
saying "hey, I discovered you!!" As a Native parent I have to correct
so many misconceptions for my children such as the John Smith/Pocohantas
story...so can you give a brother a break as only one of you got it right..we
are promised by the Creator that we will get the land back..I'll see ya
when ya get there! Peace.
Huh? | 10:20 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
To The account remains the same | 9:53 a.m.
You said "If the Book of Mormon is not true, than Jesus of the Bible is not the Christ, because both scriptures testify of the same Jesus."
What kind of twisted logic is that?
So, if I write a completely fictitious book about Jesus visiting among the The !Kung of the Kalahari Desert, by your logic it must be true "because [all three] scriptures testify of the same Jesus"? And if my "Book of !Kung" is proven by all the standards of intelligence, logic and science to be fictitious, then you would also conclude that "if the [Book of !Kung] is not true, than (sic) the Jesus of the Bible is not the Christ..."??
You see, until rationality and logic are not summarily dismissed out of hand by Mormons, there is no possible grounds for either talking with them or listening to them.
Wake up, Mormons. The rest of the world is moving on and laughing at your backward, ignorant notions!
You said "If the Book of Mormon is not true, than Jesus of the Bible is not the Christ, because both scriptures testify of the same Jesus."
What kind of twisted logic is that?
So, if I write a completely fictitious book about Jesus visiting among the The !Kung of the Kalahari Desert, by your logic it must be true "because [all three] scriptures testify of the same Jesus"? And if my "Book of !Kung" is proven by all the standards of intelligence, logic and science to be fictitious, then you would also conclude that "if the [Book of !Kung] is not true, than (sic) the Jesus of the Bible is not the Christ..."??
You see, until rationality and logic are not summarily dismissed out of hand by Mormons, there is no possible grounds for either talking with them or listening to them.
Wake up, Mormons. The rest of the world is moving on and laughing at your backward, ignorant notions!
Henry Drummond | 10:24 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
I think this controversy is an example of the scripture that a "man
can't serve two masters". When you try to reconcile science and
religion you usually end up twisting both.
As this article makes clear, Church leaders have taught for years that the American Indians are Israelites and that the land was empty when they arrived here. Trying to suggest otherwise is just silly. Those who suggest a "limited geography" theory simply ignore much of what Joseph Smith taught about the Indians and America throughout his life.
DNA testing as well as other evidence does contradict this theory. Those who try to refute it on scientific grounds are likewise taking liberties with science.
Why not take the approach the late Neal Maxwell took and just acknowledge the contradiction and be willing to wait for a the last days when all things will be revealed?
As this article makes clear, Church leaders have taught for years that the American Indians are Israelites and that the land was empty when they arrived here. Trying to suggest otherwise is just silly. Those who suggest a "limited geography" theory simply ignore much of what Joseph Smith taught about the Indians and America throughout his life.
DNA testing as well as other evidence does contradict this theory. Those who try to refute it on scientific grounds are likewise taking liberties with science.
Why not take the approach the late Neal Maxwell took and just acknowledge the contradiction and be willing to wait for a the last days when all things will be revealed?
melhar | 10:29 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
why are people so upset, all churches are based on faith. and about DNA, people
of faith all believe we all came from Adam And Eve, then why doesn"t all
our DNA's look the same. It is just the Devil trying to divide and destroy
us. Everyone should look for the good in all faithes and stop puting each other
down. You belive the Bible even tho you were not there and look at all the
changes in it over the centuries. open your hearts and minds and read all things
of Jesus and pray for guidance. My love to all.
Chicago Perspective | 10:35 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
Word on the street was that Nephi's name was changed to Victor. I was
pretty worried.
Then I realized that the change was only to the title page to clarify opinion and conjecture, not doctrine.
Then I also realized that Bruce R. McKonkie did not translate the Book of Mormon, and I felt a lot better.
Now I simply remain in my confusion as to why so many people care about the fact that I believe in the book. I thought that was my decision.
Then I realized that the change was only to the title page to clarify opinion and conjecture, not doctrine.
Then I also realized that Bruce R. McKonkie did not translate the Book of Mormon, and I felt a lot better.
Now I simply remain in my confusion as to why so many people care about the fact that I believe in the book. I thought that was my decision.
Former Missionary | 10:36 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
By the title "Former Missionary" I don't mean to say that I am a
former member of the church, I still am. However, the context contained on the
reference to the Bible is quite interesting. While serving my mission in
Brazil... I noticed that the Portuguese version also omitted "as does the
bible" as well as 10-20 footnotes that many use to claim that are
references to support such topics as blacks being descendants of Cain, and many
other topics. (In the mission you have plenty of time to study) While comparing
these differences with my English version (the Portuguese being newer in Print),
I brought up the subject with my Mission President who did not have any answers
as to why this was done. He never was able to answer the questions. I
wasn't shaken by this. It didn't cause me to doubt. I just find it
interesting that now it has been made public.
Former Bishop | 10:37 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
To Jerry | 9:55 a.m.
I have read the BOM countless times. I have been an active member for over 20 years. I served an honorable fulltime mission, and later in almost every ward and many Stake callings (including Bishop & Stake High Council), and passionately taught that the BOM was true all that time!
But in the past 5 years, as I have learned more, I have come the the prayerful conclusion that "The Adversary" has been at work ever since about 1820.
Joseph Smith himself claimed that the Lamanites were the ONLY ancestors of the American Indians. There is very good reason to believe he was strongly influenced by (or plagiarized from) "View of the Hebrews" (1823) by Ethan Smith in Vermont. And by "A View of the American Indians" (1828) by Israel Worsley. And by "A Star in the West, or a humble attempt to discover the long lost Ten Tribes of Israel" (1816) by Rev. Dr. Elias Boudinot in Trenton, New Jersey.
I cannot testify strongly enough about the power of God in my life since I have been emancipated from the deceptions and controlling influence of the Church. If you have ears to hear.
I have read the BOM countless times. I have been an active member for over 20 years. I served an honorable fulltime mission, and later in almost every ward and many Stake callings (including Bishop & Stake High Council), and passionately taught that the BOM was true all that time!
But in the past 5 years, as I have learned more, I have come the the prayerful conclusion that "The Adversary" has been at work ever since about 1820.
Joseph Smith himself claimed that the Lamanites were the ONLY ancestors of the American Indians. There is very good reason to believe he was strongly influenced by (or plagiarized from) "View of the Hebrews" (1823) by Ethan Smith in Vermont. And by "A View of the American Indians" (1828) by Israel Worsley. And by "A Star in the West, or a humble attempt to discover the long lost Ten Tribes of Israel" (1816) by Rev. Dr. Elias Boudinot in Trenton, New Jersey.
I cannot testify strongly enough about the power of God in my life since I have been emancipated from the deceptions and controlling influence of the Church. If you have ears to hear.
Glad I Got Out | 10:38 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
"True Believers" are not going to be bothered or influenced by the
facts. Look at the silly parapsychologists who still go around trying to prove
the existance of ghosts.
The one thing Joseph Smith got right though, was when he plagiarized "Know the truth and the truth will set you free."
I was raised a Mormon and tried to keep believing, but when I studied it objectively, I knew in both my heart AND MY BRAIN that it was nonsense and got out. It was the best decision of my life.
The one thing Joseph Smith got right though, was when he plagiarized "Know the truth and the truth will set you free."
I was raised a Mormon and tried to keep believing, but when I studied it objectively, I knew in both my heart AND MY BRAIN that it was nonsense and got out. It was the best decision of my life.
Jennifer | 10:43 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
I know the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the true church of the
Savior Jesus Christ, and nothing will ever change that for me.
John 8:32 | 10:45 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
This is just one of not hundreds but thousands of changes to the most correct
book on the planet. People are free to believe in anything they chose. God gave
us all free will and the right to believe what we wish. The question should
always come to each of us is what we believe actually the truth. I for one
believe there is absolute truth and my quest has always been to find it. The
truth is not dependent on our human beliefs it comes from God's word you
can depend on it. Man gets involved and just misses it all up.
Gazelem | 10:50 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
This change has nothing to do with what Joseph Smith translated from the plates.
The change is contained within an appendage to the Book of Mormon added for a
1981 introduction to the Book of Mormon. Personally, I feel that an
"introduction" or a "brief explanation" should not be
included at all. The 1830 edition did not have an "introduction," but
it had a short "preface" regarding the "many false reports"
that "have been circulated regarding the following work..."
It's really not a big deal. I would recommend reading a copy of the 1830 edition that does not contain footnotes, introductions, or brief explanations. You can still apply Mornoi's promise and understand the BoM without reading any modern explanations.
It's really not a big deal. I would recommend reading a copy of the 1830 edition that does not contain footnotes, introductions, or brief explanations. You can still apply Mornoi's promise and understand the BoM without reading any modern explanations.
bret | 10:53 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
Was the Australian Bishop really ex-communicated for researching the Book of
Mormon? I thought Mormons were taught to SEARCH and PONDOR, and not just pray.
Steve A | 10:54 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
There is an old saying that goes - for those who believe, no explanation is
necessary, for those who don't, no explanation is possible. The change
made to the introduction is minor to those who have faith and major to those who
don't.
I am a well educated person who has been thinking for myself since I was very young. I am a convert to the LDS Church. I don't allow leaders to do my thinking for me. Prayer and meditation have always been at the forefront of how I proceed in this life.
To me, no change has been made to the basic doctrines of the Church. The Book of Mormon is supposed to persuade everyone to come unto Christ. The question I have of those who have been detracting from those who believe is, what would Christ do? The savior was tollerant and accepting of all peoples. Why aren't you?
I am a well educated person who has been thinking for myself since I was very young. I am a convert to the LDS Church. I don't allow leaders to do my thinking for me. Prayer and meditation have always been at the forefront of how I proceed in this life.
To me, no change has been made to the basic doctrines of the Church. The Book of Mormon is supposed to persuade everyone to come unto Christ. The question I have of those who have been detracting from those who believe is, what would Christ do? The savior was tollerant and accepting of all peoples. Why aren't you?
TYLER | 11:01 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
To "Mercury" Please find in the Book of Mormon anywhere where it
speaks of a Prophet having more than one wife.
AllanC | 11:03 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
There are many interesting comments here. However, the one I find most amuzing
is to compare the Book of Mormon as a fictional work similar to the
"Potter" series and "Lord of the Rings" series. These works
were produced by well educated individuals with vivid imaginations, and are fun
to read an get lost in the imagery. However, the BofM is totally different, as a
convert of 40+ years, I was challenged to read the BofM and ask God our Heavenly
Father if it was true. I read six pages, knelt on my knees for the first time
ever and uttered a simple request to know if what I was reading was true and
from God. The burning in my busom was undeniablae then as it is today. God does
answer prayers. I don't need to see the "golden plate" I
don't care if the introduction is changed. I don't care if they change
punctuation or amend sentences... it does not change the experiences I have had
in the Church time and time again to know the BofM is the word of God. Jospeh
Smith translated the record for us to learn from.
TYLER | 11:09 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
Wow this is so meaningless to the Book Of Mormon's truthfulness. Someone 25
years ago put princpipal. You'll find that many prophets have their own
opinions about the Church, but that doesn't mean it is or isn't true.
This doesn't shake my faith at all. Anti-Mormons; you can question our
logic all you want, but since when is it illogical to go with what you truly
feel. If we never went with our feelings we'd never be able to make the
most important decisions of our lives.
Mike | 11:13 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
If you really look at the history of science over the many years, you find many
instances where the scientific community thought they had the facts and come to
find out later (some times hundreds of years later)they were not even close to
the truth. The field of science is ever changing as we learn more every day.
What may be thought of as fact today may change tomorrow.
Dan Slyter | 11:15 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
15 years ago I told fellow workers that there was not one shred of evidence that
supported the fact that the American Indian which I am, has one drop of Hebrew
blood. Their reply was that science would prove that all American Indians are of
Hebrew origen. They also told me their faith was better because it was blind
faith. My Bible has been proven over and over to be reliable by linguistics,
people, places, and prophecy and fulfillment.It was that faith and the fact that
I needed a Savior to save me from my sins that I left Joseph Smith and accepted
the real Jesus of the Bible. My friends with blind faith are like the Pharisees
that saw the miracles that Jesus did and said I won't leave my religion, I
don't care what the evidence says.
JRJ | 11:18 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
I am a member of the church and I have read the Book of Mormon many times. I
have a testimony of this book. For those who have studied it out for themselves
and have a testimony of the truth this will not be a difficult change. For
those who have not truly studied it and done what Moroni chapter 10 tells a
person to do and that is "ask with a sincere heart, with real intent,
having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you...".
I would recommend before any one has a negative comment to give about this change, or about the church in general, they do exactly what this scripture says (but again with a truly sincere heart) then I believe that person will not be able to say anything against the church or the Book of Mormon.
I would recommend before any one has a negative comment to give about this change, or about the church in general, they do exactly what this scripture says (but again with a truly sincere heart) then I believe that person will not be able to say anything against the church or the Book of Mormon.
History student - blog-watcher | 11:22 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
For Buxtehude - to my knowledge, Bruce R. never had a son named Oscar. He did,
however, have a father named Oscar Walter McConkie and a brother named Oscar W.
McConkie, Jr., both of whom were prominent LDS people.
Elder McConkie was one of the premier theologians of his time, and greatly loved by this student as well as many others!
Elder McConkie was one of the premier theologians of his time, and greatly loved by this student as well as many others!
Charity | 11:28 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
Jerry-that 10% you mock has helped people the world over, maybe some day even
you or someone you love. Sarcasm is what it is, but charity never failith
cheengon | 11:31 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
lds faith is over rated
Do what you want | 11:36 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
I say believe what you want.
Just don't come around frightening my horses.
Just don't come around frightening my horses.
Cognitive Dissonance | 11:39 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
So how do we reconcile this little tid-bit that comes straight from the
source?
2 Nephi:
1:6 Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord.
1:7 Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever.
1:8 And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.
2 Nephi:
1:6 Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord.
1:7 Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever.
1:8 And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.
porky | 11:38 a.m. Nov. 9, 2007
yawn
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.
- Witness: Mitchell stalked victims 4:09 p.m.
- BYU eager for crack at Oregon State 3:40 p.m.
- Messy Monday commute 3:07 p.m.
- Zoo offers prizes for 1Mth visitor 3:02 p.m.
- Texas' McCoy a winner like no other 3:00 p.m.
- Senate confronts abortion in debate 2:51 p.m.
- Early stock gains evaporate 2:49 p.m.
- Online channel Vevo signs EMI Music 2:49 p.m.
- Pearl Harbor attack remembered 2:45 p.m.
- Al Pacino set to play Shylock 2:44 p.m.
- Letters: Liberal because LDS
274 - Y. profs: Beck not all-knowing253
- TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl196
- Hate not limited to 1 in-state rivalry190
- Aggies shoot past Cougars179
- Cougars going back to Vegas140
- N.Y. Senate rejects gay marriage139
- George lost in rivalry hatefest118
- Utah/BYU rivalry can be more civil114
- Letters: Global warming a lie109
Amazon.com, Target.com, Sears.com, Walmart.com, Kmart.com and...
That does it — I'm having an affair! Thanks to Tiger Woods, David...
First, a big thank you to all who posted questions here for me to ask...
Latest comments
Utah - Home of the Once-lers Signed, The Lorax
You CANNOT take a picture of Sarah Palin with our own camera. Not permitted....
I think you made a mistake! North Sanpete's Shyanne Ison should have been...
This should be an interesting game.
I agree with mark we need a true center. this memo experiment went 3 years...
Mormons are encouraged to read whatever version of the Bible they prefer....
This is great for business!
He's a child rapist. That should draw the death penalty. Let's get it over...
Are you always this angry about BYU? Get over it. I'm glad you busted the BCS...
Any kind of reference for that claim?
Advertisements
I believe that God knows what happened. Some day there are going to be some surprised people when they find out how God created the world and brought about the populating of it.