palerobber wrote:
omni wrote:
This essay is just the latest example of how of how the apologists are now driving the interpretation of doctrine and scripture rather than the prophets, seers, and revelators.
i think it's more to the point to say scientific and social progress are driving the interpretation of doctrine.
the apologists are consultants, not theologians.
When Moroni first spoke to Joseph Smith about the Book of Mormon he explained that it was a record of the
literal ancestors of the Native Americans.
As science progressed, the introduction to the Book of Mormon was amended to reflect its findings and it became claimed that the Book of Mormon was a record of the
principal ancestors of the Native Americans.
Science moved on further, DNA studies became more comprehensive and reliable and the Book of Mormon was amended to reflect this further light and knowledge and it became claimed that the Book of Mormon was a record of some people that were
among the ancestors of the Native Americans.
Can you see the trend forming?
As science, specifically the field of genetics, progressed in its field of understanding, the Church's claim about the historicity of the Book of Mormon has gotten weaker and weaker. The initial robust claims have been shown to be less and less accurate (truthful?). Does that seem like the hallmark we would expect to see as we learn and progress in our knowledge about the Book of Mormon? Shouldn't the reverse be true - that genetics study and other scientific advancement would make the Book of Mormon more and more credible?