William Schryver wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:I see a pretty big problem with Will's argument. As I understand him, he is saying that the bulk of "average members" were wrongheaded to believe that Lamanites=Native Americans, since folks in the Church were teaching that this "wasn't necessarily so" clear back in the 1920s and thereabouts. So, why's this problematic? For a couple of reasons. (1) The LDS Church operates according the the principle of Continuing Revelations. Thus, if any new teaching on this issue were to arise, it would trump the old one. (2) The intro the to Book of Mormon, written by Elder McConkie circa 1980, pretty much blows apart these 1920s "teachings", both in terms of the "continuing revelation" principle, and in terms of doctrinal authority. "Average members", at least post-1980, certainly had good reason to think that Lamanites=Native Americans. I daresay that copies of the Book of Mormon had far wider circulation than these relatively obscure "teachings" from the '20s.
Sorry, Will, but you lose again.
Scratchy, you're the single biggest idiot that posts on this board. And, believe me, that's saying something.
What did I get wrong? Earlier in the thread, you said:
Chozah wrote:What "claims" are you talking about? Let's see you assemble a small collection of these "claims" that you say were made "repeatedly" over the course of the last century and a half. I'm really interested to see what was "claimed" that you think is now being "revised."
Am I somehow wrong to think that you are arguing in this quote that certain "claims" didn't exist? (I.e., claims that Lamanites=Native Americans?)
In a separate post, you state your position rather clearly:
Provis wrote:All I've done is argue (and you've tacitly agreed with me) that the Book of Mormon makes it clear that "Lamanite" is a purely political, not an ethnic, designation.
Fair enough, I guess, though other "official" pronouncements from the Brethren, including the Book of Mormon intro, and the quote posted by Brackite, demonstrate that the Brethren (the highest and most important of all doctrinal interpreters) obviously disagree with your views. Tell me, Will: Is your Power of Discernment somehow more powerful than that of Bruce McConkie and Spencer Kimball?
Here's another one of your silly boasts (again, torn to shreds by Brackite):
Will Schryver wrote:I'll bet you can't find a single instance of a "prophet" or "apostle" using the phrase "principal ancestors", whether in a temple dedicatory prayer or a conference talk, or whatever.
Oops! Next, take a look at this bit of sophistry:
Chozah wrote:I have no doubt that some people, including prophets and apostles, may have believed in extreme notions of the origins of native Americans -- that they were all 100% descended from Lehi. But I am aware of no formal dogma to that effect; no "teachings" per se along those lines. Yes, when Spencer W. Kimball speaks of the Navajo, his language may convey his assumption that they are 100% descendants of Lehi. But, again, I know of no "teachings" along those lines.
Why did you feel the need to put "teachings" in scare quotes? Huh, Will?
This part is interesting, too:
Will Schryver wrote:I challenge you to find something, anything, that will prove your assertion that "the Lord's mouthpieces ... consistently taught over the last 150 years that the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the American Indians."
Well, I think you've made your case that the "teachings", as it were, on this subject, have been all over the place
. The folks who seem most sure on this subject appear to have been SWK and Bruce R. McConkie. There doesn't seem to have been any doubt in their minds as to who/what the Native Americans "are," and if anything, it seems that we should be relying on the Brethren for doctrinal clarity, and not on some wonk named Will Schryver. In any case, the fact that many rank-and-file LDS would think and feel the same way on this subject as two of the most important Church leaders of the past 30 years hardly seems surprising.
At base, Will, I'm left with the impression that your entire argument hinges on some rather shaky semantic re-imagining of the word "teaching." (Perhaps this is due to the uncomfortable-for-TBMs fact that "teaching" and "doctrine" are synonymous.) You seem to want to utilize this tactic because, for whatever reason, you are bothered by the fact that this "teaching" has changed---i.e., that the Church now seems to disagree with what was "taught" by SWK and Bruce R. McConkie, among others.
Schryver wrote:Nothing in the story about the "6 women" conflicts with anything I have argued on this thread. But harmony posting it here, under the obvious impression that it is relevant, is another typical example of the ignorance of those who think they understand the essentials of this discussion.
The "essentials" of your argument has to do with interpretation of doctrine. Right? So, let me ask again: What makes you think that *you* are in a better position to declare doctrine that the Lord's Anointed? You've got your quotes from the 1920s, but, as I've already pointed out, these get "trumped" by the more recent SWK and Bruce R. McConkie interpretations. Checkmate again, Will.