ED500 Posted November 15, 2007 Posted November 15, 2007 God is currently revealing many plain and precious truths. He is correcting our misunderstanding of the story of the inhabitants of this continent. We were under the false assumption that Lamanites were pure descendants of Lehi, when in actuality there were other people previously living on the Americas.I thank the Lord for our living Prophet who guides us in these Latter Days.When will that god give The FINAL and COMPLETE (revision) version of the Book of Mormon?
LifeOnaPlate Posted November 15, 2007 Posted November 15, 2007 When will that god give The FINAL and COMPLETE (revision) version of the Book of Mormon?Latter-day Saints don't really believe in perfect scripture. We'll wait for that great Millennial day to understand some things better.
why me Posted November 15, 2007 Posted November 15, 2007 I think that this thread has had its day. It seems to me that the intro is more or less a dead issue. It has been brought out that the debate has been carried on about the LGT and Hemispheric models even after the Intro was included. This fact shows that the Intro was basically wrong in using the flawed word 'principal'. I write flawed because it can be left open to interpretation and debate as to meaning. Now, the issue is more or less cleared. I am sure that the critics will still be hooting about it. Unfortunately, on pure breed critic boards, no debate is allowed and lds posters are usually banned. And so, their hoots will go unchallenged so as to confirm their own flawed logic on the matter.
why me Posted November 15, 2007 Posted November 15, 2007 There is also this response from the BYU press:http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/66259
maxrep12 Posted November 15, 2007 Posted November 15, 2007 Apologists can cause changes in the printing of the standard works? No, but critics can. Apologists sometimes excuse that which has no excuse.
LifeOnaPlate Posted November 15, 2007 Posted November 15, 2007 No, but critics can. Apologists sometimes excuse that which has no excuse.Apparently, humor is lost on our friend maxrep.
Moriancumer Posted November 15, 2007 Posted November 15, 2007 This was in yesterday's USU campus newspaper (written by one of their regular columnists no less)http://media.www.utahstatesman.com/media/s...e-3100462.shtmlNote that the author spelled it "principle".The change in the intro threw fuel on the fire....for now. I trust that someday no one will care. -M
structurecop Posted November 15, 2007 Posted November 15, 2007 Apparently, humor is lost on our friend maxrep.Quite.
ED500 Posted November 15, 2007 Posted November 15, 2007 I think that this thread has had its day. It seems to me that the intro is more or less a dead issue. It has been brought out that the debate has been carried on about the LGT and Hemispheric models even after the Intro was included. This fact shows that the Intro was basically wrong in using the flawed word 'principal'. I write flawed because it can be left open to interpretation and debate as to meaning. Now, the issue is more or less cleared. I am sure that the critics will still be hooting about it. Unfortunately, on pure breed critic boards, no debate is allowed and lds posters are usually banned. And so, their hoots will go unchallenged so as to confirm their own flawed logic on the matter.So, what else is flawed in that book? Infinitum?What else is left open to interpretation? The entire book?
Pahoran Posted November 15, 2007 Posted November 15, 2007 So, what else is flawed in that book? Infinitum?Perhaps if this is repeated to you often enough, Ed, some part of it may finally penetrate your cranium:The Introduction was never part of the revealed text.What else is left open to interpretation? The entire book?Perish the thought that you might have to actually think about what you read in order to understand something. What is the world coming to?Regards,Pahoran
LifeOnaPlate Posted November 15, 2007 Posted November 15, 2007 So, what else is flawed in that book? Infinitum?What else is left open to interpretation? The entire book?Heaven forbid we have to use our own brains when reading the scriptures.Pahoran beat me to the punch.
Drewm777 Posted November 15, 2007 Posted November 15, 2007 So, what else is flawed in that book? Infinitum?Nothing in the Book is flawed. Sorry you have such a hard time understanding such a simple concept. Your parents must really love you.What else is left open to interpretation? The entire book?Well, yes. That's what our brains are for (those of us who were endowed with one, anyway).
ED500 Posted November 16, 2007 Posted November 16, 2007 Nothing in the Book is flawed. Sorry you have such a hard time understanding such a simple concept. Your parents must really love you.Well, yes. That's what our brains are for (those of us who were endowed with one, anyway).why me says "This fact shows that the Intro was basically wrong in using the flawed word 'principal'. I write flawed because it can be left open to interpretation and debate as to meaning. Now, the issue is more or less cleared"pahoran says:"Perhaps if this is repeated to you often enough, Ed, some part of it may finally penetrate your cranium:The Introduction was never part of the revealed text." very convenient.....i see
Scott Lloyd Posted November 16, 2007 Posted November 16, 2007 why me says "This fact shows that the Intro was basically wrong in using the flawed word 'principal'. I write flawed because it can be left open to interpretation and debate as to meaning. Now, the issue is more or less cleared"pahoran says:"Perhaps if this is repeated to you often enough, Ed, some part of it may finally penetrate your cranium:The Introduction was never part of the revealed text." very convenient.....i see Not only very convenient, but very germane to intelligent discussion of the matter.I'm glad you finally get it.
consiglieri Posted November 16, 2007 Posted November 16, 2007 I should think most Bible-believing Christians would be more concerned about the Johannine Comma being added to 1 John hundreds of years later than the deletion of two words from the introduction of a book they do not accept as scripture.All the Best!--Consiglieri
LifeOnaPlate Posted November 16, 2007 Posted November 16, 2007 I should think most Bible-believing Christians would be more concerned about the Johannine Comma being added to 1 John hundreds of years later than the deletion of two words from the introduction of a book they do not accept as scripture.All the Best!--ConsiglieriWait, ED50 believes in the Bible? And he's bringing up these points? haha!
Scott Lloyd Posted November 16, 2007 Posted November 16, 2007 Bro. Solar, Thanks. "51%" is my interpretation of course. But if the Lord Himself calls them Lamanities/Jews, how can one not believe that they must be mostly of Israelite descent? I can't think of anywhere else in the scriptures He refers to a population by an ancestry of which they are not. I could be wrong though, that's why I came here for help. -MToday's members of the Church are referred to often as Israel or the blood of Israel. While this refers to one's inheritance of blessings and obligations pertaining to the covenant of Abraham, it would be an absurd stretch to say this means a Mormon is necessarily "mostly of Israelite descent."Similarly, referring to today's American Indians as descendants of Lehi helps establish their covenantal lineage, since Lehi himself was a descendant of Joseph who was sold into Egypt. It matters not whether they were "mostly" of Israelite or Nephite descent; even one genealogical line would be enough.By the way, just for the record, if you are of European ancestry today, I think it likely that you are literally of Israelite descent, though not necessarily "mostly" of Israelite descent. If you embrace the gospel of Christ through the ordinance of baptism, those inherited Abrahamic blessings and obligations become operative for you.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.