DiscussMormonism.com

I think Thanksgiving for Mormons (at least the TBM kind) has an extra facet to it. The Pilgrim story of the First Thanksgiving (mythology and all) has the added significance of being the first time that Good White Christians came together with the poor degenerate descendants of those wicked, wicked Lamanites in nearly 1000 years. To Latter-Day Saints, the extra Book of Mormon angle takes Thanksgiving and the Pilgrim story to mythic levels in the mind of the TBM. For my TBM immediate and extended family, this is the case at least.

Modern science has all but shown that the above assumption is utterly false. The natives in America had no relation to the mythology of the Judeo-Christian ethic, having sub-divided themselves from their Eurasian ancestors via the land bridge thousands of years before biblical mythology had even got started.

As many of us here now, the Church will now acknowledge this universally accepted scientific explanation by changing the introduction to the Book of Mormon to reflect this.

I used this Thanksgiving to bring up the issue and it's implications with my TBM family. It was the first any of them had heard of the change, and it's significance. It was a civil discussion and no one got called to repentance. ;)

For the first time in a long time I was able to shed a more secular light on to a topic that in my family has been embellished for too long with religious mythology. It's a small step to take on the road to elevating the rest of my families consciousness out of the Church, but if it can be civil and constructive like that, I'm actually feeling pretty good about my prospects.

chonguey wrote:I think Thanksgiving for Mormons (at least the TBM kind) has an extra facet to it. The Pilgrim story of the First Thanksgiving (mythology and all) has the added significance of being the first time that Good White Christians came together with the poor degenerate descendants of those wicked, wicked Lamanites in nearly 1000 years. To Latter-Day Saints, the extra Book of Mormon angle takes Thanksgiving and the Pilgrim story to mythic levels in the mind of the TBM. For my TBM immediate and extended family, this is the case at least.

I don't know about your family, immediate and extended, but in all my years in the Church (47 as an adult) that is the first I ever heard any such notion. I think it is pretty funny.

chonguey wrote: Modern science has all but shown that the above assumption is utterly false. The natives in America had no relation to the mythology of the Judeo-Christian ethic, having sub-divided themselves from their Eurasian ancestors via the land bridge thousands of years before biblical mythology had even got started.

This is absolute rubbish. The Book of Mormon never says that there weren't others who were here or what their origins were. And we know there were migrations. You should read the diffusionist theories, which are well accepted now. I have seen a picture of a pineapple carved in the ornate stone work of a temple in India before the birth of Christ. And you do know about the tobacco found in the mummies in Egypt? Catch up, please before you start spouting out about what "modern science" has shown.

chonguey wrote: As many of us here now, the Church will now acknowledge this universally accepted scientific explanation by changing the introduction to the Book of Mormon to reflect this.

The change of wording in the intro has not changed a thing doctrinally. In fact it reaffirms it. That the Native Americans have in their lineage real people, real Israelites. You had better read it over again carefully. You missed the point.

chonguey wrote:
I used this Thanksgiving to bring up the issue and it's implications with my TBM family. It was the first any of them had heard of the change, and it's significance. It was a civil discussion and no one got called to repentance. ;)

For the first time in a long time I was able to shed a more secular light on to a topic that in my family has been embellished for too long with religious mythology. It's a small step to take on the road to elevating the rest of my families consciousness out of the Church, but if it can be civil and constructive like that, I'm actually feeling pretty good about my prospects.

Until you get on the other side and see the condemnation you will be under if any of your family follows you out of the true Church.

charity wrote:

chonguey wrote: As many of us here now, the Church will now acknowledge this universally accepted scientific explanation by changing the introduction to the Book of Mormon to reflect this.

The change of wording in the intro has not changed a thing doctrinally. In fact it reaffirms it. That the Native Americans have in their lineage real people, real Israelites. You had better read it over again carefully. You missed the point.

You are wrong Charity, there is no evidence that Native Americans migrated from the Middle East. Chonguey in his/her explanation is correct. If you disagree, what evidence do you have?

charity wrote:I don't know about your family, immediate and extended, but in all my years in the Church (47 as an adult) that is the first I ever heard any such notion. I think it is pretty funny.

I'm glad you do. Certain funky traditions that get passed around in Mormondem like the Three Nephites, etc. are not doctrinal or anything like that. They are Faith-Promoting Rumor of fantastic proportions, but they get handed down from generation to generation. Not every one is familiar with them, but then again, not every one comes from the same back ground.

If it's a question of your experiences vis a vis mine, you aren't going to out-Mormon me, Charity. I'm sixth-generation pioneer stock, RM, Provo Utah boy.

charity wrote:This is absolute rubbish. The Book of Mormon never says that there weren't others who were here or what their origins were. And we know there were migrations. You should read the diffusionist theories, which are well accepted now. I have seen a picture of a pineapple carved in the ornate stone work of a temple in India before the birth of Christ. And you do know about the tobacco found in the mummies in Egypt? Catch up, please before you start spouting out about what "modern science" has shown.

As a scientist, I get a chuckle whenever I am chided to "catch up" on scientific issues.

charity wrote:The change of wording in the intro has not changed a thing doctrinally. In fact it reaffirms it. That the Native Americans have in their lineage real people, real Israelites. You had better read it over again carefully. You missed the point.

Talk about missing the point entirely yourself. I don't think I ever claimed to have said that anything had to have changed "doctrinally."

Had you been privy to the conversation you would have heard that the doctrinal implications that would pertain to our "salvation" aren't affected by this change. Bruce R McKonkie, who authored the introduction, introduced what can be seen as an "error" in to the text. That is, the basic assumption that the "history" contained in the text is the explanation for ALL or even most of the native American peoples, North, Central and South.

Does it bring up questions of in-errancy for Early church leaders who champion different models of the history of the world? Yes, absolutely. Does it call in to doubt many "modern revelations" and some of tenants of Mormonism including its penchant for scriptural literalism? Certainly. But those are all-together different questions, and ones I didn't bring up.

My family, however, was familiar with notions that the American Indians at the pilgrims dinner were most likely descendants of the Lamanites. This fits in to their understanding of the world.

Is it possible? Sure.

Is it probable? No, it is not probable, in light of Modern scientific evidence.

Does it alter the way we conceive the flow of history in our minds? Absolutely. The Book of Mormon still has other probabilities for being "true", but only within the Limited Geography Theory, and therefore is unlikely to have any real connection to the tribes associated with the Pilgrims.

However, by discussing the change we can see why that it was corrected: The modern understanding of the populating of the Americas is via several major migrations all via the ice age land bridge, and does not follow in any major way, the story contained in the Book of Mormon.

charity wrote:Until you get on the other side and see the condemnation you will be under if any of your family follows you out of the true Church.

Please keep your religious opinions at a distance of 500 meters from me and my family. ;)

I'm aware of the theological implications of being an "apostate," as you insinuate. But I have to let you in on a little secret: I love my family and am not some viper waiting to pounce and destroy. I'm certainly more well read then them on certain issues, both doctrinal and historical, and I like to impart that knowledge safely and comfortably and most of all, respectfully. Our ultimate conclusions might be different, but that's another story, as the saying goes.

The truth, however, needs to be discussed, however challenging it may be to certain family members religious convictions and notions about history. Sometimes you have to re-learn what you thought you knew. And because I love my family, I will take opportunities to teach "truth" however it may challenge them.

chonguey wrote:
As a scientist, I get a chuckle whenever I am chided to "catch up" on scientific issues.

What kind of scientist, if you don't mind my asking. I think that is pertinent to the discussion.

chonguey wrote:Had you been privy to the conversation you would have heard that the doctrinal implications that would pertain to our "salvation" aren't affected by this change. Bruce R McKonkie, who authored the introduction, introduced what can be seen as an "error" in to the text. That is, the basic assumption that the "history" contained in the text is the explanation for ALL or even most of the native American peoples, North, Central and South.

He did not say that the text is explanation for all or even most native American peoples. He said that the Lamanites were the most important person in their ancestry. He didn't say that Israelites accounted for all of even most of their ancestry. This is your big mistake.

chonguey wrote:Does it bring up questions of in-errancy for Early church leaders who champion different models of the history of the world? Yes, absolutely. Does it call in to doubt many "modern revelations" and some of tenants of Mormonism including its penchant for scriptural literalism? Certainly. But those are all-together different questions, and ones I didn't bring up.

We do not believe our leaders are inerrant. That is your first mistake. But we won't bring up your other errors.

chonguey wrote:My family, however, was familiar with notions that the American Indians at the pilgrims dinner were most likely descendants of the Lamanites. This fits in to their understanding of the world.

Does it alter the way we conceive the flow of history in our minds? Absolutely. The Book of Mormon still has other probabilities for being "true", but only within the Limited Geography Theory, and therefore is unlikely to have any real connection to the tribes associated with the Pilgrims.

The Church cannot be held accountable for peole getting wrong ideas.

chonguey wrote:However, by discussing the change we can see why that it was corrected: The modern understanding of the populating of the Americas is via several major migrations all via the ice age land bridge, and does not follow in any major way, the story contained in the Book of Mormon.

Some of my ancestors made their way West by means of wagon trains across the Great American desert. Arrived in California about 1870. But that doesn't mean that one of my great-grandfathers didn't leave Texas, take a ship down to the Isthmus of Panama, walk across and catch a ship up the other side to arrive in California about the same time?

So you argument doesn't wash. Just because there were major migrations via a land bridge doesn't mean there were other types of migrations. Which we know there were. You should read up on diffusionist theory.

chonguey wrote:I'm aware of the theological implications of being an "apostate," as you insinuate. But I have to let you in on a little secret: I love my family and am not some viper waiting to pounce and destroy. I'm certainly more well read then them on certain issues, both doctrinal and historical, and I like to impart that knowledge safely and comfortably and most of all, respectfully. Our ultimate conclusions might be different, but that's another story, as the saying goes.

The truth, however, needs to be discussed, however challenging it may be to certain family members religious convictions and notions about history. Sometimes you have to re-learn what you thought you knew. And because I love my family, I will take opportunities to teach "truth" however it may challenge them.

The problem is, you aren't teaching them the truth. You are teaching them a few scientific facts which you have misinterpreted and you are leading them away into error.

What kind of scientist did you say?

charity wrote:He did not say that the text is explanation for all or even most native American peoples. He said that the Lamanites were the most important person in their ancestry. He didn't say that Israelites accounted for all of even most of their ancestry. This is your big mistake.

Oh dear. Charity, you haven't been listening. That is YOUR big mistake. You can't claim that the Lamanites are the most important ancestor of living Native Americans, when you have yet to prove that Lamanites existed. That would be the first item on your To Do list. In order for them to be an ancestor of people who really DO exist, you have to prove they existed in real life, instead of just in Joseph's fertile imagination.

We're stuck in with the Abraham problem again. You can't use a myth to prove anything. First you have to prove that the myth is real. And you haven't. And neither has any other apologist. So please quit expecting people to take you seriously, until you've addressed those issues.

We do not believe our leaders are inerrant. That is your first mistake. But we won't bring up your other errors.

Yes, we do. Well, we pay lip service to errancy, but in reality, we do indeed believe our leaders are inerrant. If you don't think so, please give the last 10 times our leaders admitted publically to making a mistake in a doctrinal matter.

The Church cannot be held accountable for peole getting wrong ideas.

Wrong again. The church can and indeed should be held accountable for members getting the wrong ideas. That is what correlation is all about.

You should read up on diffusionist theory.

Theory being the operative word. Please tell me this isn't another of the times you misuse and abuse a source, because I'm going to have to CFR, and please make sure you connect diffusionist theory to the Book of Mormon. We wouldn't want people to think you were trying to connect apples to plastic, now would we?

The problem is, you aren't teaching them the truth. You are teaching them a few scientific facts which you have misinterpreted and you are leading them away into error.

No, he's teaching them how he views those facts, and showing them how the church has skewed those same facts. To those of us who view LDS church leaders as fallible men who are led by their own personal agendas, it's alright to do that. Only those who see those same leaders as infallible men led by God have distorted concepts surrounding "facts".

charity wrote:
The problem is, you aren't teaching them the truth. You are teaching them a few scientific facts which you have misinterpreted and you are leading them away into error.

What kind of scientist did you say?

And what kind of scientist are you Charity? It's obvious you are completely ignorant of the science behind man's early migration based on the Out of Africa Theory. You claimed previously in this thread that American Indians have Israelite (read Middle Eastern) lineage? You wrote in another thread the following "The Church still teaches that American Indians are direct blood descedants of Father Lehi.(again read Middle Eastern). Let me repeat you are wrong.

If you intend to disagree then present your reasoning and/or your evidence for your claims.

I have seen a picture of a pineapple carved in the ornate stone work of a temple in India before the birth of Christ. And you do know about the tobacco found in the mummies in Egypt?

CRF - I particularly want to see evidence that these findings are widely accepted among the experts. I'm familiar with some examples such as these that diffusionists offer as evidence of their theory, but whenever I've delved into the details, I discovered that other experts reject the interpretation of the diffusionists. An example is that a couple of "Indologists" claim that maize is depicted in ancient sculptures, while other experts claim that these individuals have erred due to their lack of familiarity with the ancient iconography of the period, and that what they are calling "maize" is really a mythical pearl-fruit (muktaphala). This is an example of what I would consider "questionable" evidence. I know this occurs quite frequently within the Book of Mormon debate, as well, and people who are unfamiliar with Mesoamerican iconography can see "elephants" when macaws or tapirs are being represented.

by the way, I don't reject the diffusionist theory out-of-hand, by the way, I think it's possible. I just want to see how solid your evidence really is.

Under LGT, the Lehites had no impact on the larger culture, hence, are untraceable. And yet they're the "most important" ancestors? It makes no sense.

charity wrote:What kind of scientist, if you don't mind my asking. I think that is pertinent to the discussion.

If you must know I am a computer scientist by training, education and career. But no, its not all that pertinent to the discussion. Whether or not my specialty lies within the study of living organisms, the motion of the planets, or writing scholarly research on historical issues. Like all scientists I use the same tools to conduct research and build upon that knowledge: Through the application of the scientific methodologies of observation, theory and critical experimentation and testing.

Whether or not my training has anything to do with the discussion however is a different matter. With all due respects, as a life long LDS and given my current education, I think my training is perfectly adequate to allow myself to render opinions on issues of Mormonism and the body of scientific knowledge at large. Certainly more so than some self-appointed apologists or critics. ;)

charity wrote:He did not say that the text is explanation for all or even most native American peoples. He said that the Lamanites were the most important person in their ancestry. He didn't say that Israelites accounted for all of even most of their ancestry. This is your big mistake.

Actually, the word was "principle," which may mean a couple of things. Now, you claim that means "most important." Most important how?

Certainly not important enough to have been the major contributor to the majority of hereditary lines in native peoples. Even with the apologist-friendly haplogroup X, you are dealing with such small population pools that have X, you could never claim those ancestors made a huge "splash" in the gene pool. It makes them an oddity, a rarity. Certainly not important in a genetic way, or in a way that be-speaks massive reproductive influence.

Important how, Charity?

The only thing it is important to is the Book of Mormon, a 19th century creation and what can be seen as a hypothesis for explaining the origins of the majority of native peoples. It was an important claim 177 years ago when not much was known. But modern understanding has shown that the assumption that Joseph Smith and subsequent leaders is fundamentally wrong. The Book of Mormon can not be the primary explanation for the genesis of the AmerIndians. If the Book of Mormon represents true history, it must be referring to a civilization that, like Beastie said, had little impact on the majority of native peoples in the Americas.

That is why the introduction was changed from "primary" to "among."

I'm not sure why you are arguing this point. ;)

charity wrote:We do not believe our leaders are inerrant. That is your first mistake. But we won't bring up your other errors.

Just because Mormons don't call it inerrancy doesn't mean they don't believe in the exact same concept.

I'm sure you are familiar with the saying "The brethren will never leader the church astray." If you have been in the Church for 47 years, you will have no doubt heard it many times. But it begs the question of what qualifies as "leading the church astray?"

Does teaching and promoting false notions of history qualify as leading the church astray? I would certainly think so.

If anything, the change to the Book of Mormon could be seen by a faithful scholarly LDS as just that: correcting a text prepared by one of the brethren so as to not lead people astray with false notions about the history of the world. The purging of "false doctrine" if you will. All with the help of modern scholarship and scientific inquiry. ;)

That is a charitable explanation, and not my personal particular belief on the matter. But then, hey, I'm just an apostate scientist after all. ;)