And when was this preface added? So the addition in 1981 that people from Patestine were only the principal anchestors of Native Americans instead of the only ones was altered in the 21st Century to state they were just one of the sources of anchestry makes this a fact? If so it is a changing fact. Will that preface claim zero anchestry in a few years time? Until very recently the Mormons taught that all Indians found in the Americas are descended from the Lamanites."
I think that you assume that all words that comes from the mouths of prophets are revalation. Instead you must come to understand that there is much speculation and thought that goes behind a lot of periphial claims. Including that the fathers of the indians are exclusivly lamanites. In this case it is a speculation that has been over stated. The truth is that before 1981 is that there was no preface at all which stated such things. If you look at the things which have been added or the printing errors that have been correced things slowly have come to look more and more like the origanal manuscripts. Revelation is given through the first presidency. And is only considered revelation if they make a written annoucement. People might look to our recent proclomation to the families as revelation. But it is not. Although it is an issue of the first presidency they did not preface it as doctrine and thus it is merely opinion. There was a similiar statement made by Jospeh Fielding Smith about evolution in 1907. He, as the proclomation to the family, is simply stating a belief.
I did not see anywhere that Jack claimed that everything said from the mouths of “prophets” was revelation and it would appear that you are clouding the issue in bringing this up. I also am troubled by the changes in “speculation” about the Lamanites by the church as I was brought up being taught that they were the anchestors of all American Indians. Joseph Smith and all other leaders of the church taught this throughout the 19th Century. If anyone should know the true meaning of the passages in the original manuscripts, it would be Joseph Smith.
"Ah, the Limited Geography Cop-out….I mean theory. Again, this explanation is relatively recent in Mormon apologies, becoming more and more commonly used as archaeological evidence continued to mount against the prevailing Mormon teachings. It is clear that Joseph Smith thought Moroni hid the plate in a hill in New York. Did all the events in teh Book of Mormon occure within the radius you state of that hill?"
I wouldn't call it a cop out. Rather if you read the book of mormon travel is always explained in the number of days by foot. It never takes more than a week or so to travel between any two locations... unless the party is lost in the wilderness. The book of mormon is very vague about actual location only describing lakes, rivers, and a narrow stretch of land. It doesn't even spell out that it takes place in America. Though it obviously does. Joseph Smith always claimed that these events took place in South America and that Moroni came an extreme distance to hide the plates in an area that had no to little population. I am trying to answer your doubtfulness from the scriptures themselves as they are to be taken first before any prophet opens his mouth. Unless he claims god himself wants me to say... This theory as well as the next point I'll make has been in circulation since the fifties. I'm currently reading a book called the messiah in ancient america which was written in the early seventies and makes this claim. It's only new to you because you have only recently heard it.
I have always held to the opinion that you either believe what the Book of Mormons states and what Joseph Smith said about it or you should probably question the entire basis of the Book of Mormon being an actual history of peoples in the Americas. I too find the limited geography theory a rationalization for the time when science is not in support of vast civilizations of great numbers of people. I don’t think Joseph Smith ever claimed that Moroni traveled an extreme distance to hide the plates, that is a much more modern idea that is part of the 20th Century “Limited Geography Theory” as Joseph thought the plates were hidden in the same Hill Cumorah where a climatic battle took place between the Nephites and the Lamanites. I think the limited geography ideas have been around since before the 50’s, but I agree with Jack that the idea is in fact comparatively recent in Mormon history, and is definitely fairly recent in having very many people really thinking much about it. I am probably older than you and was in Mormon meetings in the 50’s and 60’s. I don’t remember the concept ever being raised in my Seminary classes of the mid-60’s. I think I encountered the idea in the early 70’s in context of something I read about B.H. Roberts where he was not stating a mainstream Mormon opinion.
"This is a very recent Mormon apologist idea. For most of their history Mormons have taught that the Lamanites were the only people existing in the New World until the Spanish arrived"
In the book of Mormon lamanites are described as anyone who is not a Nephite. So this teaching according to our standards is correct. Again this is an old theory.
It may be an old theory, but it was never taught to me growing up in the Mormon church. I also was taught that the Lamanites were the only people that existed in the Americas when the Spanish arrived. I most definitely was not taught that the term “Lamanites” referred to anyone not a "Nephite" at the time as there was no reason to do so with the prevailing thinking of the time.
"Christ gave a different law regarding marriage than what existed as given by Book of Mormon prophets before His coming? Please give the scripture that spells this out. But if so, your comments about people in the Old Testament being involved in polygamy may not be a good justification for its practice after the time that Christ came to earth"
The lord commands the Nephites not to marry the Lamanites or mingle with those people upon the penalty of coming under thier curse in second Nephi. When Christ comes in third Nephi all the people are apperently united and mingle with eachother as the curse no longer applies.
Like Jack I am skeptical of your thinking here, and I cannot see how your further explanation really makes your premise. Nephites mingling with each other does not say much about changing doctrines of marriage to me. True some Lamanites had converted, become white, and were then called Nephites but this does not make your point in my opinion.
"The problem with your argument here is that Moroni was supposed to be the last Nephite. So with his death the Nephites are no longer an issue. Again, Mormons for most of their history did not teach that the Lamanites made up a small portion of the people that became the modern peoples found in pre-Columbian America, they taught they made up 100% of the ancestors. But it would appear that you do not understand that no genetic ties to Middle Eastern people are found in the DNA of any such people in the New World, and this would appear even if only a small group of people had passed on genetic information. Many presidents of the Mormon church until the very past few years spoke openly that Native Americans were all descendents of the Lamanites to the point of actually calling them Lamanites. I’ll bet that Thomas Monson once made comments to this effect."
I already told you but i will repeat that all non Nephites are identified as Lamanites. This is still taught because by our standards it is true.
Mormons in my era of instruction did not think there were any other people except Nephites and Lamanites around so I would agree that all non-Nephites would be considered Lamanites. But I think you have avoided answering Jack on this one. I agree with something you stated earlier, that one must respect the actual text of the Book of Mormon. After Jaredites and Mulekites there only Nephites and Lamanites. At one point they stopped making the distinction as a sign of unity, but later "non-believers" started being called Lamanites. But where is it stated or implied that people other than those originally descended from Lehi and his company were to be found ? Can you quote Joseph Smith ever giving out such an idea ? To me this is modern revisionist thought.
"I thought the Mormon church still did not like its members to be Masons and vice versa. "
Joseph Smith was a Mason... and none of my Mason Brothers have ever made mention of me being Mormon. Most masons aren't terribly religous. Its more of glorified history society which preserves its most "sacred" history through rituals.
I always heard the same thing Jack mentions. Do your fellow Masons know that you are a Mormon ?
"Joseph Smith himself claimed to have translated the Book of Abraham from those same scrolls and he copied down some of them as the drawings which appear in The Pearl of Great Price. It would appear that he included these as the most important to be published, so I think the basis for most of your attempt to deflect the original criticism to be a very weak and poor argument as the facsimiles came from the scrolls that were mentioned. I have never before encountered your claim there were members of the twelve who did not accept the same story given by Smith about the scrolls. Do you have a reference for this claim? The description of the scrolls given at the time matches what they look like today. It also appears that most of what Smith had at the time for translation did survive the fire as he also kept some note books from them as an Egyptian alphabet. The theory that Joseph Smith used an alternative translation method to produce the work is relatively modern, becoming more necessary for some Mormons after the scrolls were re-discovered in the 60’s and were shown to actually read very differently than The Book of Abraham."
Joseph Smith was in the possesion of four mummies... of all the manuscripts he had only the papyrus for Hor survived.
This is not what I have read. Of the 12 fragments there are some are from “The Book of the Dead” belonging to Amon-Re-Neferirnub and Tshenmin.
If you read anything about how Joseph translated I think you would be in agreement that it has noting to do with how translators today translate. Joseph never claimed to understand what any sybols mean... he certainly didn't know how to read the reformed Egyptian of the golden plates. No, instead he relied on the Urim and Thumum. According to the record Jospeh translated them first through his seer stone. Then he tried to acribe an alphabet as he had recently begun to try and translate as they did in his day. The older he got the more he tried to learn to do it for himself... without his seer stone. This is evident through his records. If he were a fraud I doubt he would try to openly legitamize and make open for public scrutiny the way in which he translates. As for his descriptions of the papyrus Joseph said. They were glorious in wrapping in color and extravagent with complex glyphs. The papyrus for Hor was simple, colorless and poorly wrapped. I do not have a reference for the twelve. However a similiar statement is found in Rough Stone Rolling by Richard Bushman and he does indeed have a reference for that I'm sure for he is a respected historian and a man much more knowledgable than myself.
I don’t think Joseph Smith ever claimed to use a seer stone to translate the papyri he had in his possession. He claimed to actually be able to read the writing upon them. I notice that you avoided any comment about what Jack said about the facsimiles. Smith apparently thought these some of the most important part of the writings in his possession. The fragments bearing the originals of the facsimiles were recovered and apparently translated to mean something different than the descriptions provided in the Pearl of Great Price. If Smith did not claim to understand what the symbols meant, why did he produce a “Grammer & Alphabet of the Egyptian Lnaguage” with such symbols placed next to their purported meanings ?
"I think if I had been visited by both The Father and The Son as two distinct personages I would have recalled that vividly every time I talked about the event."
It's clear you have never read these accounts as you wouldnt have made this comment. Three of the eight accounts are not even told by Joseph but rather his subordanants... and these are the ones that vary most from his first account of the first vision. Again not in content but in detail. The other five given by Jospeh Smith never sounded reherced but were all detailed connonicle descriptions. As Joseph aged different things stuck out to him... as does the retelling of any true story... but the details are equally as vast and rich as in the first account. Joseph is simply remembering things through expieriance and things that interested him about the vision when he was fouteen were certainly different than those things he noticed about it when he was thirty six.
It would not be clear to me from Jack’s statement that he had not read the accounts. In my opinion you are being a bit condescending in your attitude to him. Quite frankly I have found his knowledge of Mormonism to probably be superior to your own so far as I find errors in your thinking that he has not shown. I find your explanation here to avoid his comment, instead you give the standard Mormon explanation of why the accounts have differences. I agree with Jack, it would remain of great “interest” to me throughout my life if I had seen the Father and the Son at the same time and this pointed out a major difference in theology to the Bible and the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is different from the Bible in sounding more Trinitarian.
"But nobody disputes that the Huns had horses as there is much evidence beyond bones that shows they existed. The same cannotbe said for the New World during Bookof Mormon times. There are fossilized horses in the New World as they are thought to have originated there. However, they are thought to have become extinct before Book of Mormon times and are not found again in sediments until the Spanish re-introduced them."
This is an undebateable and moot point. Many people have disagreements about very important periods in history. Christians always lay claim to Moses. But from a historical perspective there is no connicle record of his existence outside of the bible. He might as well have not existed as no other culture from Canan to the Egytians have any record of anyone macthing his despriotion. The same can be argued for Jesus himself. Infact both the validaty of these two purportedly historical figures have been in question for years and years and years. And there is no evidence save the bible that they even existed.
You seem to be going off the subject.
"But it was taught by latter-day prophets. I think Joseph Smith set down all his revelations, so why are we missing this one? Why are we not even given any mention of it? Where did you come up with this? No black members with the priesthood were told not to exercise it while Smith was alive. That started in Brigham Young’s term as president."
No it was not... I told you exactly what the church doctrine is and has always taught regarding black skin and I also admitted that even members of the twelve were bigots who theorized many things about blacks which are not doctinal. I am willing to concede that many parts of our church history are inglourious but entirely comprhensible. You should refer to my earlier answers regarding what constitutes revelation and doctrine. It is a historical fact that Joseph ordained black people to the priesthood and ran for president under the bid to free slaves. This cannot be disputed. Niether can it be disputed that he said he was told to stop. The doctrine and covenents never claimed to have all of Joseph's revelations. Joseph had stated that it had been revealed to him that matter and energy are eternal... infact this is a dotrine of ours but is not written in the doctrine and covonents as Joseph never formalized them. They are written and intact and prefaced as doctrine but not found in any version of the doctrine and covenants.
I also dispute that Joseph was ever told to stop ordaining black people. This was a very sore point for me back in the 1960's when some Mormons claimed that a revelation was given to deny blacks the priesthood, the problem was that like yourself they could never produce any details about this so-called revelation. You have provided none because none can be provided. It is obvious to me that Joseph Smith never was told to stop. This can in fact be disputed and I am doing just that.
Your original statement was in reference to “"black people being less "valiant" in the "pre-existance" hence their black skin" and you claimed that this was “slander” whereas Jack said that it was taught by “latter-day prophets.” In another thread it was pointed out that all Mormon apostles are called as prophets.
Bruce R. McConkie stated this thought “Those who were less valiant in pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the negroes. Such spirits are sent to earth through the lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God and his murder of Abel being a black skin. (Moses 5:16-41; 7:8,12,22.) Noah's son Ham married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain, thus preserving the negro lineage through the flood. (Abra. 1:20-27.) Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty." (1966 edition of Mormon Doctrine, page 527)
And this comment certainly implies the possibility: “There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient, more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less...There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits.” (Doctrines of Salvation, by Joseph Fielding Smith, 1954; 1:61, 65-66)
I do not wish to debate further. ....I am adament in my position that Joseph himself believed every word of it. He was either an ordained prophet or an insane savant. Nobody who was in thier right mind would die for a lie. /quote]I personally think Joseph Smith probably believed most of what he claimed. But I do think there are some grey areas between being completely a prophet or being insane. [quote]...it is useless to teach someone who is unwilling to undergo the trial of faith layed out in Alma chapter thirty two. So it is at this that I will distance myself. You seem less hateful than other anti-mormons and I enjoy a good debate. But I know regardless of the things I say you will always dispute them in some way.
I have seen many of Jack’s posts before and have never considered him an anti-Mormon. You make assumptions I would not about whether or not he would change his mind about anything. I have little doubt from your B&W thinking that your capacity to see other people’s points is not very great. I have responded since you
reply
share