It is currently Tue Sep 30, 2014 12:53 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 157 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:07 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 7:16 pm
Posts: 1372
KimberlyAnn wrote:
beastie wrote:
BTW, I've never met a single exmormon who thought the prophet spoke for God every time he opened his mouth. What we do tend to expect is that when the prophet addresses a congregation, functioning in his role as prophet, and speaking "in the name of Jesus Christ", he would actually take the time beforehand to seek inspiration and, you know, be accurately inspired in that talk.


I'm in agreement with your side note here, Beastie. As a Mormon, I never thought the "prophets" spoke on behalf of God every time they opened their mouths, but when they did claim to function as such, I expected them to be spot-on correct.

KA


Since Will seems to be so enthusiastic about outing doubters to ecclesiastical authority, perhaps someone should out Will to his ecclesiastical authorities viz his disdain for prophetic and apostolic utterance, his believing that he knows God's mind better and is more inspired than God's chosen mouthpieces, and his ridiculing of those who take prophetic and apostolic utterance seriously.

_________________
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:12 am 
Founder & Visionary
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:07 pm
Posts: 10009
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
guy sajer wrote:
Since Will seems to be so enthusiastic about outing doubters to ecclesiastical authority, perhaps someone should out Will . . .


GREAT POINT! As this thread has so thoroughly demonstrated, who counts as a "doubter" more than Will himself?

_________________
"Apparently it takes LDS Inc. about 5 to 10 years to forget how much it hurt the last time it shot itself in the foot."

--Brother of Jerry, Recovery from Mormonism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:11 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:58 am
Posts: 1671
Location: Elsewhere
Dr. Shades wrote:
guy sajer wrote:
Since Will seems to be so enthusiastic about outing doubters to ecclesiastical authority, perhaps someone should out Will . . .


GREAT POINT! As this thread has so thoroughly demonstrated, who counts as a "doubter" more than Will himself?

Or perhaps they will make me an official spokesman for the church, since my views seem to accord so well with theirs, as evidenced by this statement from 1997:
Quote:
"As to whether these were the first inhabitants…we don't have a position on that. Our scripture does not try to account for any other people who may have lived in the New World before, during or after the days of the Jaredites and the Nephites, and we don't have any official doctrine about who the descendants of the Nephites and the Jaredites are. Many Mormons believe that American Indians are descendants of the Lamanites [a division of the Nephites], but that's not in the scripture."

Stewart Reid, LDS Public Relations, March 1997

_________________
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:33 am 
Deacon
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 12:45 pm
Posts: 231
Location: Colorado
William Schryver 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.

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." That means you'll need to start with Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and continue on to our lifetimes.



Holy crap! When the new BofM version came out with "amoung" instead of "principle", I thought it'd take 10 or 20 years before apologists took this stand. But I was wrong. It's only taken a few months.

This is splitting hairs. Any active member will tell you that the American Native is supposed to be the lamanities.

And don't say, "we should know better". Who is the church for? It's not just for the scholars, historians and academic types who call themselves apologists. It was supposed to be everyone. That's right. Even us 8 -5 working stiffs who only know what we've been told. Even the LDS masses who now believe the Lamanites are the American Natives.

So what went wrong? Why do these people believe that? Were we all just stupid? Did we not get the memo? I can't believe what I'm reading - how the church is trying to do a complete flip-flop starting with our good friend Will. Stop calling us average Joes stupid. You're trying to mess with our heads. (...course, whats new.)

_________________
"If False, it is one of the most cunning, wicked, bold, deep-laid impositions ever palmed upon the world, calculated to deceive and ruin millions… " - Orson Pratt on The book of Mormon


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:45 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:58 am
Posts: 1671
Location: Elsewhere
Ten Bear wrote:
William Schryver 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.

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." That means you'll need to start with Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and continue on to our lifetimes.



Holy crap! When the new BofM version came out with "amoung" instead of "principle", I thought it'd take 10 or 20 years before apologists took this stand. But I was wrong. It's only taken a few months.

This is splitting hairs. Any active member will tell you that the American Native is supposed to be the lamanities.

And don't say, "we should know better". Who is the church for? It's not just for the scholars, historians and academic types who call themselves apologists. It was supposed to be everyone. That's right. Even us 8 -5 working stiffs who only know what we've been told. Even the LDS masses who now believe the Lamanites are the American Natives.

So what went wrong? Why do these people believe that? Were we all just stupid? Did we not get the memo? I can't believe what I'm reading - how the church is trying to do a complete flip-flop starting with our good friend Will. Stop calling us average Joes stupid. You're trying to mess with our heads. (...course, whats new.)

I asked Dr. Shades to provide us with the "teachings" of the church that you claim made you believe what you do. I'm still waiting on him. In the meantime, I thought I might provide a short list of things taught through the years:

Elder Levi Edgar Young in General Conference in 1928:
Quote:
There must be a clear distinction, it grows every year more evident, between the origins of America's ancient people and the sources of their culture. The human material of the pre- Columbian societies probably came from Asia by way of Alaska, the orthodox route long accepted for the American Indians…Among many social belongings abandoned along the route seem to have been most of the things called intellectual. The men and women who peopled America arrived, intellectually, with the clothes they stood in…Dr. Uhle urges an alternative [theory for how high culture arose in the Americas]…Occasional cultured mariners from India, China, Japan or other lands may have landed, he believes, few in numbers, but full of ideas, to bring to the rude American societies…just the hint that culture was possible. Small numerically as this source of inspiration must have been, it may conceivably have been the seed from which sprouted the great achievements of Peru and Central America…

Levi Edgar Young, Conference Report (October 1928): 103–106, italics added.


The 1927 Book of Mormon study guide:
Quote:
All Indians Are Not the Descendants of Lehi Students of the Book of Mormon should be cautioned against the error of supposing that all the American Indians are the descendants of Lehi, Mulek, and their companions, and that their languages and dialects, their social organizations, religious conceptions and practices, traditions, etc., are all traceable to those Hebrew sources.

Because the Jaredite record is very brief we are apt to forget that it embraces many centuries—how many, we have no means of ascertaining—and that it gives an epitome principally of the history of Moron, where the Jaredites first established themselves. It stands to reason that the Jaredites gradually settled in favorable localities all over the American continents, and that both Nephites and Lamanites came in contact with them, and that an amalgamation took place everywhere as in the case of the Nephites and Mulekites in Zarahemla. If so, the Jaredite culture must have become a factor in the development of the institutions and languages of the country. But the Jaredites came from some center of population in Asia.

Janne M. Sjodahl, "Suggested Key To Book of Mormon Geography," Improvement Era (September 1927)


The 1938 Book of Mormon study guide:
Quote:
Indian ancestry, at least in part, is attributed by the Nephite record to the Lamanites. However, the Book of Mormon deals only with the history and expansion of three small colonies which came to America and it does not deny or disprove the possibility of other immigrations, which probably would be unknown to its writers. Jewish origin may represent only a part of the total ancestry of the American Indian today.

William E. Berrett, Milton R. Hunter, Roy A. Welker, and H. Alvah Fitzgerald, A Guide to the Study of the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: LDS Department of Education, 1938), 47–48


Sure looks like the Church has been teaching this for all of our lives. Where were you?

_________________
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:55 am 
Deacon
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 12:45 pm
Posts: 231
Location: Colorado
Quote:
"William Schryver
Sure looks like the Church has been teaching this for all of our lives. Where were you?


No the church has not and you know it. Non of these ever made it into our sunday school guides and into the common belief of the general lds public and you know it. You're cherry pickin' a couple of obscure articles to make your point.

I still stand with what I said. Most LDS believe that the Native Americans are the Lamanites. Now where do they get that from? Certainly not these paragraphs that you've dug up and dusted off. Nice try.

_________________
"If False, it is one of the most cunning, wicked, bold, deep-laid impositions ever palmed upon the world, calculated to deceive and ruin millions… " - Orson Pratt on The book of Mormon


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:00 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 11:09 am
Posts: 2455
Location: House of Lords cellar
William Schryver wrote:
I asked Dr. Shades to provide us with the "teachings" of the church that you claim made you believe what you do.


Well, it's getting harder now, especially with the white-washed wentworth letter presented in the new Joseph Smith manual.

Heh, what did Joseph Smith know about Book of Mormon geography anyways...

_________________
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:00 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 9:27 am
Posts: 2750
Well we know a prophet is only a prophet when speaking as prophet. So when are folks like Levi Edgar Young, Janne M. Sjodahl and William E. Berrett speaking as prophets?

These are just opinons, and minority ones at that. They hardly represent the official Church position or the general understanding among Church leaders.

The overwhelming view among Mormons is that Indians are Lamanites and Lamanites are Indians. This was part of the sales pitch that made conversions in South America so successful. I know. I live there. "This is a history about your ancestors!" is a common sales pitch by missionaries even today.

Try telling a Brazilian any of this stuff Will is suggesting and they get all pissed off at you for being a "fundy" or "apostate." Yet, Will assures us that the Church has taught this to us "all our lives."

Right.

The Church teaches what people need to hear. And right now, more than ever, in light of DNA evidence, the LDS people need to hear about how the Indians aren't necessarily Lamanites. It is all about apologetics and distancing the church from a possible coffin nail.

_________________
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:04 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 7:16 pm
Posts: 1372
William Schryver wrote:
Dr. Shades wrote:
guy sajer wrote:
Since Will seems to be so enthusiastic about outing doubters to ecclesiastical authority, perhaps someone should out Will . . .


GREAT POINT! As this thread has so thoroughly demonstrated, who counts as a "doubter" more than Will himself?

Or perhaps they will make me an official spokesman for the church, since my views seem to accord so well with theirs, as evidenced by this statement from 1997:
Quote:
"As to whether these were the first inhabitants…we don't have a position on that. Our scripture does not try to account for any other people who may have lived in the New World before, during or after the days of the Jaredites and the Nephites, and we don't have any official doctrine about who the descendants of the Nephites and the Jaredites are. Many Mormons believe that American Indians are descendants of the Lamanites [a division of the Nephites], but that's not in the scripture."

Stewart Reid, LDS Public Relations, March 1997


That's interesting. So now it is official LDS Church policy that 150 years of prophetic and apostolic pronouncements on the origin of the American Indian (North, Central, and South) are null and void?

I guess you're not the heretic after all.

Strange it took the Bretheren around 10 years more to change the intro to the BofM to reflect this new insight. I wonder when they'll get around to actually putting this in lesson manuals and teaching it from the pulpit?

I don't see an institutional disavowal of past Prophetic and Apostolic (and I imagine as well contemporary--I bet we can still find examples of Bretheren claiming the Indian to be descendents of BofM peoples post 1997) as strengthening your overall position as to the veracity of the BofM and the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith (who clearly taught Indians ARE descendents of BofM peoples) and his successors.

_________________
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:14 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:58 am
Posts: 1671
Location: Elsewhere
dartagnan wrote:
Well we know a prophet is only a prophet when speaking as prophet. So when are folks like Levi Edgar Young, Janne M. Sjodahl and William E. Berrett speaking as prophets?

These are just opinons, and minority ones at that. They hardly represent the official Church position or the general understanding among Church leaders.

The overwhelming view among Mormons is that Indians are Lamanites and Lamanites are Indians. This was part of the sales pitch that made conversions in South America so successful. I know. I live there. "This is a history about your ancestors!" is a common sales pitch by missionaries even today.

Try telling a Brazilian any of this stuff Will is suggesting and they get all pissed off at you for being a "fundy" or "apostate." Yet, Will assures us that the Church has taught this to us "all our lives."

Right.

The Church teaches what people need to hear. And right now, more than ever, in light of DNA evidence, the LDS people need to hear about how the Indians aren't necessarily Lamanites. It is all about apologetics and distancing the church from a possible coffin nail.

Elder Young was speaking in General Conference. Sjodahl and Berrett, et al. were assigned the job of preparing study materials for the Book of Mormon. All of them predate the so-called DNA controversy by decades. And yet they said the same things that are being said now. Do you deny this? Of course, you can't.

I can find other examples of this same kind of thing. Was it the majority opinion? Probably it was among serious students of the Book of Mormon. But that doesn't mean that the average Mormon thought this way. But it demonstrates that as early as the 1920s, there was an official effort being made to teach this way of viewing the Book of Mormon! And, there was a recognition that not all Amerindians were necessarily descendants of Lehi.

For critics to continue to deny this is, to me, simply another manifestation of their inability to view these things rationally. They are fundies. They were that way when they were active LDS, and now that they're exmos, they're still that way.

_________________
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:23 am 
Regional Representative

Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 1:59 pm
Posts: 657
Location: SLC (behind the Zion Curtain)
William Schryver wrote:
dartagnan wrote:
Well we know a prophet is only a prophet when speaking as prophet. So when are folks like Levi Edgar Young, Janne M. Sjodahl and William E. Berrett speaking as prophets?

These are just opinons, and minority ones at that. They hardly represent the official Church position or the general understanding among Church leaders.

The overwhelming view among Mormons is that Indians are Lamanites and Lamanites are Indians. This was part of the sales pitch that made conversions in South America so successful. I know. I live there. "This is a history about your ancestors!" is a common sales pitch by missionaries even today.

Try telling a Brazilian any of this stuff Will is suggesting and they get all pissed off at you for being a "fundy" or "apostate." Yet, Will assures us that the Church has taught this to us "all our lives."

Right.

The Church teaches what people need to hear. And right now, more than ever, in light of DNA evidence, the LDS people need to hear about how the Indians aren't necessarily Lamanites. It is all about apologetics and distancing the church from a possible coffin nail.

Elder Young was speaking in General Conference. Sjodahl and Berrett, et al. were assigned the job of preparing study materials for the Book of Mormon. All of them predate the so-called DNA controversy by decades. And yet they said the same things that are being said now. Do you deny this? Of course, you can't.

I can find other examples of this same kind of thing. Was it the majority opinion? Probably it was among serious students of the Book of Mormon. But that doesn't mean that the average Mormon thought this way. But it demonstrates that as early as the 1920s, there was an official effort being made to teach this way of viewing the Book of Mormon! And, there was a recognition that not all Amerindians were necessarily descendants of Lehi.

For critics to continue to deny this is, to me, simply another manifestation of their inability to view these things rationally. They are fundies. They were that way when they were active LDS, and now that they're exmos, they're still that way.


WHAT? So you're saying that in all the temple dedicatory prayers offered by the prophets telling them that they are Lamanites, and all the missionary sales-pitches to the Mexicans/South americans/etc. were all only opinion -- and probably wrong at that?

I can't believe you can even say what you're saying!

_________________
Überzeugungen sind oft die gefährlichsten Feinde der Wahrheit.
[Certainty (that one is correct) is often the most dangerous enemy of the
truth.] - Friedrich Nietzsche


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:26 am 
Deacon
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 12:45 pm
Posts: 231
Location: Colorado
Quote:

I can find other examples of this same kind of thing. Was it the majority opinion? Probably it was among serious students of the Book of Mormon. But that doesn't mean that the average Mormon thought this way. But it demonstrates that as early as the 1920s, there was an official effort being made to teach this way of viewing the Book of Mormon! And, there was a recognition that not all Amerindians were necessarily descendants of Lehi.


For the life of me, I can't understand why you're pushing "But that doesn't mean that the average Mormon thought this way". It's a game right?

Look, I've had the opportunity to live in wards from California to Boston and many, many places inbetween. (Nature of my career). I've sat down with members of every walk in my 45+ years as a TBM and enjoyed good converstation and shared much. But the one thing you or anybody is not going to tell me is that the average Mormon doesn't think that the American Indian is a Lamanite. They do. I'll give you this; we haven't heard it preached over the pulpit at General Conference for quite a few years. I know, I've been listening. Funny that.

Oh, and I'm not a fundie. I just call it like I see it.

_________________
"If False, it is one of the most cunning, wicked, bold, deep-laid impositions ever palmed upon the world, calculated to deceive and ruin millions… " - Orson Pratt on The book of Mormon


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:41 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:58 am
Posts: 1671
Location: Elsewhere
Ten Bear wrote:
Quote:

I can find other examples of this same kind of thing. Was it the majority opinion? Probably it was among serious students of the Book of Mormon. But that doesn't mean that the average Mormon thought this way. But it demonstrates that as early as the 1920s, there was an official effort being made to teach this way of viewing the Book of Mormon! And, there was a recognition that not all Amerindians were necessarily descendants of Lehi.


For the life of me, I can't understand why you're pushing "But that doesn't mean that the average Mormon thought this way". It's a game right?

Look, I've had the opportunity to live in wards from California to Boston and many, many places inbetween. (Nature of my career). I've sat down with members of every walk in my 45+ years as a TBM and enjoyed good converstation and shared much. But the one thing you or anybody is not going to tell me is that the average Mormon doesn't think that the American Indian is a Lamanite. They do. I'll give you this; we haven't heard it preached over the pulpit at General Conference for quite a few years. I know, I've been listening. Funny that.

Oh, and I'm not a fundie. I just call it like I see it.

You misunderstood what I said. Read it again. I'm acknowledging the fact that the "average Mormon" probably thought just like you. I'm only saying that people were trying to teach otherwise as long ago as the 1920s.

_________________
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:59 am 
Regional Representative

Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 1:59 pm
Posts: 657
Location: SLC (behind the Zion Curtain)
William Schryver wrote:
Ten Bear wrote:
Quote:

I can find other examples of this same kind of thing. Was it the majority opinion? Probably it was among serious students of the Book of Mormon. But that doesn't mean that the average Mormon thought this way. But it demonstrates that as early as the 1920s, there was an official effort being made to teach this way of viewing the Book of Mormon! And, there was a recognition that not all Amerindians were necessarily descendants of Lehi.


For the life of me, I can't understand why you're pushing "But that doesn't mean that the average Mormon thought this way". It's a game right?

Look, I've had the opportunity to live in wards from California to Boston and many, many places inbetween. (Nature of my career). I've sat down with members of every walk in my 45+ years as a TBM and enjoyed good converstation and shared much. But the one thing you or anybody is not going to tell me is that the average Mormon doesn't think that the American Indian is a Lamanite. They do. I'll give you this; we haven't heard it preached over the pulpit at General Conference for quite a few years. I know, I've been listening. Funny that.

Oh, and I'm not a fundie. I just call it like I see it.

You misunderstood what I said. Read it again. I'm acknowledging the fact that the "average Mormon" probably thought just like you. I'm only saying that people were trying to teach otherwise as long ago as the 1920s.


So you find a few people (not even the prophets of the day) that taught what you said. But I'd really like to know your thoughts on the other side -- were the Presidents of the church -- Spencer W. Kimball, etc., wrong to declare to the listeners of the temple prayers that they were Lamanites? Or is this where we spin it to a "political term?"

_________________
Überzeugungen sind oft die gefährlichsten Feinde der Wahrheit.
[Certainty (that one is correct) is often the most dangerous enemy of the
truth.] - Friedrich Nietzsche


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 11:04 am 
Deacon
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 12:45 pm
Posts: 231
Location: Colorado
William Schryver wrote:

You misunderstood what I said. Read it again. I'm acknowledging the fact that the "average Mormon" probably thought just like you. I'm only saying that people were trying to teach otherwise as long ago as the 1920s.



Yes, I did mis-read that. My bad. Sorry.

I don't doubt that there were those who were trying to teach that. Maybe they saw what was coming?

So up until 1920, common teachings were to lead members to think that the Lamanites were the Am. Indian and only that. Then here (around the '20s or after) we see an effort to teach members that there may have been others. Why? Where did they get their info from? Inspiration from the Lord or just that dumb science?

_________________
"If False, it is one of the most cunning, wicked, bold, deep-laid impositions ever palmed upon the world, calculated to deceive and ruin millions… " - Orson Pratt on The book of Mormon


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 11:16 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:58 am
Posts: 1671
Location: Elsewhere
Ten Bear wrote:
William Schryver wrote:

You misunderstood what I said. Read it again. I'm acknowledging the fact that the "average Mormon" probably thought just like you. I'm only saying that people were trying to teach otherwise as long ago as the 1920s.



Yes, I did mis-read that. My bad. Sorry.

I don't doubt that there were those who were trying to teach that. Maybe they saw what was coming?

So up until 1920, common teachings were to lead members to think that the Lamanites were the Am. Indian and only that. Then here (around the '20s or after) we see an effort to teach members that there may have been others. Why? Where did they get their info from? Inspiration from the Lord or just that dumb science?

There was so such thing as "common teachings" before about 1920! Don't you people get that? There was no such thing as correlation, etc. There were no study manuals, etc. When the church started making an effort to take control of teaching is when we start to see these kinds of quotes appear.

You can actually find people saying these kinds of things as far back as the 1880s. Why? Well, that's about the time that people in Utah had finally gotten established, after 40 years of trying to tame the wilderness, and they finally started actually doing those things you do when you have a little leisure time: like actually studying the Book of Mormon. Up until then, there is no evidence at all that anyone had ever seriously undertaken a study of the book. As soon as people actually start dissecting the text, it becomes apparent that some of the initial impressions were not accurate -- among them the actual geographic scope of the book. The travel times alone tell us that we're talking about an area of maybe 500 miles in diameter.

_________________
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 11:17 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 7:40 am
Posts: 1183
Ten Bear wrote:

I still stand with what I said. Most LDS believe that the Native Americans are the Lamanites. Now where do they get that from?


That is the big question. Every LDS I know believes NAs are Lamanites. Where in the world did they get such crazy ideas?

_________________
"We of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith." - Gordon B. Hinckley

"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true." - Dallin H. Oaks


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 11:18 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 9:27 am
Posts: 2750
Quote:
Elder Young was speaking in General Conference.

Yes, he was speaking his opinion, nothing more. It didn't resonate with the Church until the DNA stuff presented problems for Joseph Smith's understanding of the Book of Mormon. Now the scholars at FARMS are working overtime trying to come up with apologetic arguments.

Isn't it funny how the "it was just an opinion" argument is embraced by apologists when past prophets say stupid things, yet whenever a nobody throws something out on the table that could be used for apologetic purposes seventy years down the road, suddenly it isn't just an opinion, but rather an "official effort" by the "Church" to teach something.
Quote:
Sjodahl and Berrett, et al. were assigned the job of preparing study materials for the Book of Mormon

So? They presented their opinion, nothing more. It didn't resonate with the Church.
Quote:
All of them predate the so-called DNA controversy by decades. And yet they said the same things that are being said now. Do you deny this? Of course, you can't.

I don't need to either. I never said otherwise. The DNA controversy sparked an apologetic necessity to revive dead opinions from a very few LDS commentators.
Quote:
I can find other examples of this same kind of thing.

Present all the examples you've got.
Quote:
Was it the majority opinion? Probably it was among serious students of the Book of Mormon.

There is no "probably" about it. It most certainly was and is.
Quote:
But that doesn't mean that the average Mormon thought this way.

The average Mormon did and does think this way.
Most Mormons do think this way, and virtually all Mormons thought that way during the 19th century. You're insulting everyone's intelligence by trying to exahlt this minority fringe view as if it were always the norm in Mormon studies.
Quote:
But it demonstrates that as early as the 1920s, there was an official effort being made to teach this way of viewing the Book of Mormon!

You obviously don't understand what's official. If speaking at COnference on just about anything constitutes an "official effort" to teach something, then the Church officially taught Adam God, it officialy taught skin color changes with faithfulness, etc. And how is it that subsequent Church publications, that are actually taught to the membership on sundays, completely contradict these very few opinions of the past?
Quote:
And, there was a recognition that not all Amerindians were necessarily descendants of Lehi.

By a very few, yes. It wasn't an official Church proclamation.

Quote:
For critics to continue to deny this is, to me, simply another manifestation of their inability to view these things rationally.

You don't seem to be grasping what the critical argument really is, which smells like another straw man burning.
Quote:
They are fundies. They were that way when they were active LDS, and now that they're exmos, they're still that way.

The fact that they have changed their minds is only evidence that their minds can be changed; evidence that they are reasonable. It shows that their minds can be changed by a presentation of sufficient evidence. On the other hand, the fact that apologists don't change their minds is evidence that they are not reasonable, because as your cohort pacman once said, "no amount of evidence will convince me the Church isn't true." So why are you pretending to be interested in a real discussion about deducing the facts as we have them? Ultimately you're going to fall back on this silly "You're all fundies... I was just here to poke fun" nonsense, as you always do.

And I get a kick out of the way you dismiss the Book of Mormon by saying it is our "biased interpretation" of it. How is it that our interpretation is the same as the interpretations of 19th century LDS leadership? You're an apostate according to 19th century Mormonism. You've failed to trust Joseph Smith and have instead relied on the creativity of modern apologetics. Who will you have to answer to in the hereafter, Joseph Smith or Brant Gardner?

_________________
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 11:22 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:58 am
Posts: 1671
Location: Elsewhere
BishopRic wrote:
William Schryver wrote:
Ten Bear wrote:
Quote:

I can find other examples of this same kind of thing. Was it the majority opinion? Probably it was among serious students of the Book of Mormon. But that doesn't mean that the average Mormon thought this way. But it demonstrates that as early as the 1920s, there was an official effort being made to teach this way of viewing the Book of Mormon! And, there was a recognition that not all Amerindians were necessarily descendants of Lehi.


For the life of me, I can't understand why you're pushing "But that doesn't mean that the average Mormon thought this way". It's a game right?

Look, I've had the opportunity to live in wards from California to Boston and many, many places inbetween. (Nature of my career). I've sat down with members of every walk in my 45+ years as a TBM and enjoyed good converstation and shared much. But the one thing you or anybody is not going to tell me is that the average Mormon doesn't think that the American Indian is a Lamanite. They do. I'll give you this; we haven't heard it preached over the pulpit at General Conference for quite a few years. I know, I've been listening. Funny that.

Oh, and I'm not a fundie. I just call it like I see it.

You misunderstood what I said. Read it again. I'm acknowledging the fact that the "average Mormon" probably thought just like you. I'm only saying that people were trying to teach otherwise as long ago as the 1920s.


So you find a few people (not even the prophets of the day) that taught what you said. But I'd really like to know your thoughts on the other side -- were the Presidents of the church -- Spencer W. Kimball, etc., wrong to declare to the listeners of the temple prayers that they were Lamanites? Or is this where we spin it to a "political term?"

Who says those people at the temple dedications were not Lamanites? I believe the blood of Lehi flows in many, if not most, of the Amerindians living today. Indeed, Lehi is probably a direct ancestor of almost all of them. Just like you and I are direct descendants of Charlemagne.

_________________
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 11:26 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 12:16 pm
Posts: 1895
Location: Lehi, UT
The statements that Will and others are using are still vacuous gas because they don't identify which Indians are not Lamanites. The word "among" plays the same shell game. Which Indians are not Lamanites, please let us know.

_________________
Mormon Expression


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 11:29 am 
Deacon
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 12:45 pm
Posts: 231
Location: Colorado
Quote:
There was so such thing as "common teachings" before about 1920! Don't you people get that? There was no such thing as correlation, etc. There were no study manuals, etc. When the church started making an effort to take control of teaching is when we start to see these kinds of quotes appear.

You can actually find people saying these kinds of things as far back as the 1880s. Why? Well, that's about the time that people in Utah had finally gotten established, after 40 years of trying to tame the wilderness, and they finally started actually doing those things you do when you have a little leisure time: like actually studying the Book of Mormon. Up until then, there is no evidence at all that anyone had ever seriously undertaken a study of the book. As soon as people actually start dissecting the text, it becomes apparent that some of the initial impressions were not accurate -- among them the actual geographic scope of the book. The travel times alone tell us that we're talking about an area of maybe 500 miles in diameter.


lol. Who's "you people"?


Well, here we go again. Semantics. Why did these early saints join the church? What brought the people out to the Salt Lake City valley? Why did they leave their homes and families for another church? Because of a common belief right? Something they were taught, right? Noone is suggesting that they had organized classes with manuals and all. But we can say "common teachings". And more importantly, teachings that came from the BofM. And I would dare say, teachings that came from Joseph Smith himself. Now, who would know better if the Lamanites were indiains or not? And we do know that that is what he taught.

_________________
"If False, it is one of the most cunning, wicked, bold, deep-laid impositions ever palmed upon the world, calculated to deceive and ruin millions… " - Orson Pratt on The book of Mormon


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 157 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Analytics, Craig Paxton, Doctor Steuss, Quasimodo, tld and 29 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group