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.
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.
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.
I can find other examples of this same kind of thing.
Present all the examples you've got.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?