Js Manual -- Deletion From Wentworth Letter

[mms]

This was posted in another forum and there seems to be little support for the Church's position (Nehor being the exception), so I thought there would be some here who would have some thoughts on the matter in support of the Church's decision to leave this particular part of the language of the Wentworth Letter out. Here is the post from the other forum.

The new JS manual for next year contains almost the entire text of the Wentworth letter word for word. The only part they deleted shows up like this in the manual:

"...This book... tells us that our savior made..."

The only part they deleted from the letter reads as follows:

"In this important and interesting book the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel, at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian Era. We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites, and came directly from the Tower of Babel. The second race came directly from the city of Jerusalem, about six hundred years before Christ. They were principally Israelites, of the descendants of Joseph. The Jaredites were destroyed about the time that the Israelites came from Jerusalem, who succeeded them in the inheritance of the country. The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country. This book also tells us that..."

Here is a link to the chapter at LDS.org

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne...contentLocale=0

Is it simply an issue of space? Was it an effort to avoid a needless discussion of DNA arguments and whether they are of any consequence, etc. Both? Neither? Something else?

[cksalmon]

This was posted in another forum and there seems to be little support for the Church's position (Nehor being the exception), so I thought there would be some here who would have some thoughts on the matter in support of the Church's decision to leave this particular part of the language of the Wentworth Letter out. Here is the post from the other forum.

Here is a link to the chapter at LDS.org

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne...contentLocale=0

Is it simply an issue of space? Was it an effort to avoid a needless discussion of DNA arguments and whether they are of any consequence, etc. Both? Neither? Something else?

Looks like the de-emphasis (read: elision) of these claims parallels the recent change to BoM's introduction.

CKS

[oats]

It could be because that paragraph doesn't seem to contain anything of importance that is not already known (by 99.99% of the people who will read that book).

It could be to save space.

It could be to avoid discussions veering off into speculation of the specifics of the passage. I can see this being an important reason. Old men in priesthood could definitely veer off in a direction irrelevant to the lesson if for some reason a conversation on the topic of the section was started. It would not be a discussion I'd want to have a priesthood class where I ought to be subjected to a discussion that would strengthen me spiritually. For this reason alone, now that I think about it, I don't care that they took out the passage.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This was posted in another forum and there seems to be little support for the Church's position (Nehor being the exception), so I thought there would be some here who would have some thoughts on the matter in support of the Church's decision to leave this particular part of the language of the Wentworth Letter out. Here is the post from the other forum.

Here is a link to the chapter at LDS.org

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne...contentLocale=0

Is it simply an issue of space? Was it an effort to avoid a needless discussion of DNA arguments and whether they are of any consequence, etc. Both? Neither? Something else?

Most likley the left it out for 2 reasons. One is that this information is very common knowldge. I dont know how a member of the church couldnt know this. 2nd the las little bit "The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country. This book also tells us that..." Seems to not be correct. Some would assume that this "remnant are the american indians. The text its self never says this. THe remnat is amoung the indians would be a more correct way to say this.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Is it simply an issue of space?

Yes

[Kenngo1969]

I'm disinclined to dig out all the quotes from the early Brethren that leave room for the possibility that others were already in the Americas when Book of Mormon peoples arrived. (That topic has been discussed on the Board before.) Suffice it to say, there is a not inconsiderable number of such quotes, and that the idea that others arrived before Book of Mormon peoples came is not exactly a recent invention. Whether Joseph Smith thought that Book of Mormon peoples were the first to arrive here or not has no bearing on my salvation or anyone else's. Only critics demand prophetic perfection. As for me and my house, we say, "Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah!" And we serve the God whom Joseph Smith revealed.

[BCSpace]

It gives the impression that those two groups of people were the only inhabitants; a concept that is not doctrinal.

[Hammer]

This was posted in another forum and there seems to be little support for the Church's position (Nehor being the exception), so I thought there would be some here who would have some thoughts on the matter in support of the Church's decision to leave this particular part of the language of the Wentworth Letter out. Here is the post from the other forum.

Here is a link to the chapter at LDS.org

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne...contentLocale=0

Is it simply an issue of space? Was it an effort to avoid a needless discussion of DNA arguments and whether they are of any consequence, etc. Both? Neither? Something else?

I believe it is to eliminate contraversy. But I actually see nothing wrong with the passage because it is onloy speaking of this text, not all populous that ever roamed the continent.

[phaedrus ut]

It gives the impression that those two groups of people were the only inhabitants; a concept that is not doctrinal.

When did it become officially not doctrinal? Was there an announcement of what is doctrinal?

Phaedrus

[The Dude]

It was dropped because it is not necessary for salvation. Commas, semi-colons, parentheses, and dashes are also not necessary for salvation and will be dropped in the future, leaving only simple sentences set apart by periods and, where necessary, question marks. This is sufficient for salvation.

[Doctor Steuss]

It was dropped because it is not necessary for salvation. Commas, semi-colons, parentheses, and dashes are also not necessary for salvation and will be dropped in the future, leaving only simple sentences set apart by periods and, where necessary, question marks. This is sufficient for salvation.

Question marks are a tool of the devil.

[The Dude]

Question marks are a tool of the devil.

Opposition in all things.

[Hammer]

It was dropped because it is not necessary for salvation. Commas, semi-colons, parentheses, and dashes are also not necessary for salvation and will be dropped in the future, leaving only simple sentences set apart by periods and, where necessary, question marks. This is sufficient for salvation.

So you find it significant?

[LifeOnaPlate]

When did it become officially not doctrinal? Was there an announcement of what is doctrinal?

Phaedrus

The Book of Mormon text itself would be a good place to start.

The quote was likely not included because it seems to represent the hemispheric model as opposed to the LGT.

For further questions I refer you to the following, from the same letter the excerpt is taken from:

We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Commas, semi-colons, parentheses, and dashes are also not necessary for salvation and will be dropped in the future, leaving only simple sentences set apart by periods and, where necessary, question marks. This is sufficient for salvation.

Royal Skousen is already doing this.

[Buckeye]

Leaving in the quote would also open up the argument that "principal ancestry" is church doctrine. While the Teachings manuals serve to instruct on teachings of the Prophets, they also serve to teach the current doctrines of the church. I see no problem with removing any teaching which is not current doctrine.

Editted to add: I am by no means implying that "principal ancestry" ever was church doctrine, just that it certainly is not so now.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Having read through the entire series of manuals (as published so far), I think sometimes people here give those who compiled the texts far too much credit for being devious and trying to force specific readings onto the audiences who end up reading the text (which based on the normal meetings I have been to over the past several years really represents a small minority of the membership).

My personal opinion is that omissions are largely made to avoid having the church put its imprimatur on material which the collators did not believe was doctrinal - and I think they regularly make mistakes (in that they put stuff into these manuals which I absolutely do not believe is doctrine either, and probably omit stuff that I do).

[cdowis]

I think this is getting pretty deep here, folks. A bland summary of the BOM is excised from the Wentworth letter, and we are actually discussing it in detail?

Are we going to get into another DNA discussion?

[HiJolly]

Having read through the entire series of manuals (as published so far), I think sometimes people here give those who compiled the texts far too much credit for being devious and trying to force specific readings onto the audiences who end up reading the text (which based on the normal meetings I have been to over the past several years really represents a small minority of the membership).

My personal opinion is that omissions are largely made to avoid having the church put its imprimatur on material which the collators did not believe was doctrinal - and I think they regularly make mistakes (in that they put stuff into these manuals which I absolutely do not believe is doctrine either, and probably omit stuff that I do).

Yeah, what he said...

HiJolly

[Buckeye]

I think this is getting pretty deep here, folks. A bland summary of the BOM is excised from the Wentworth letter, and we are actually discussing it in detail?

Are we going to get into another DNA discussion?

Hence, a possible reason why the section wasn't included in the manual.

[selek]

I actually like threads like this.

It's amusing to see the anti's demanding that we read the minds of the authors and offer speculation (informed or not) about their possible motives.

They absolutely love trying to derive meaning and plots from the various tea leaves, yet they are the first to howl in a manner fit for the damned if we dare to levy the same methods against them.

[Lightbearer]

This was posted in another forum and there seems to be little support for the Church's position (Nehor being the exception), so I thought there would be some here who would have some thoughts on the matter in support of the Church's decision to leave this particular part of the language of the Wentworth Letter out. Here is the post from the other forum.

Here is a link to the chapter at LDS.org

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne...contentLocale=0

Is it simply an issue of space? Was it an effort to avoid a needless discussion of DNA arguments and whether they are of any consequence, etc. Both? Neither? Something else?

Actually I think it was just to give you something to complain about...what is missing as opposed to what is included. It is odd you rarely hear someone complain or even comment on what was included.

But seriously it was just to tick you off

[LifeOnaPlate]

I actually like threads like this.

It's amusing to see the anti's demanding that we read the minds of the authors and offer speculation (informed or not) about their possible motives.

mms isn't an anti, though. He can be critical, but I wouldn't call him an anti-Mormon.

They absolutely love trying to derive meaning and plots from the various tea leaves, yet they are the first to howl in a manner fit for the damned if we dare to levy the same methods against them.

I think this is too simplistic. I can't really put my finger on mms's motives. He could be honestly bothered by this, or perhaps trying to reconcile it with his view of what the manuals should say. He could be trying to stir the pot. He could be all sorts of things. It's better just to answer the question directly, than engage in it, selek, you know that, bro.

[Zakuska]

It gives the impression that those two groups of people were the only inhabitants; a concept that is not doctrinal.

Id agree... what happened to the third party that came over? The Mulekites. Who joined up with the Nephites.

[mms]

Actually I think it was just to give you something to complain about...what is missing as opposed to what is included. It is odd you rarely hear someone complain or even comment on what was included.

But seriously it was just to tick you off

Tick me off? I'm sorry, did my OP indicate that I was "tick[ed] off"? Just re-read it. Nope, does not indicate in any way that I am ticked off.