2 Interesting "Mormon News" items

[Stroopwafel]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

I had the opportunity to spend a few years in this area and to me, the Sea of Cortez is a sacred place. For me, the veil is very thin there and I have no TR, nor was I active in the Church at the time.

Rivers, lakes, and the sea have always had a mysterious appeal to me. Definitely a source of serenity. Although we have different takes on our experiences, I can certainly relate to that.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Stroopwafel said:

Not sure about what you intend to mean here.

I added to my post later. Don't know if you saw the addition.  

What I meant was that the Church of Jesus Christ invites people to seek personal divine revelation as to the truthfulness of its message. Therefore, all we really have to do is keep the question open in terms of "looking at the data" as you put it. If antagonists cannot falsify our faith by "looking at the data" then the question is still open, and one can feel free to take the matter to God in prayer. 

I've here explained my meaning as clearly as I can. If you still don't grasp it, I don't know what else to say, other than I hope and trust that onlookers will grasp it. 

[Stroopwafel]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I added to my post later. Don't know if you saw the addition.  

What I meant was that the Church of Jesus Christ invites people to seek personal divine revelation as to the truthfulness of its message. Therefore, all we really have to do is keep the question open in terms of "looking at the data" as you put it. If antagonists cannot falsify our faith by "looking at the data" then the question is still open, and one can feel free to take the matter to God in prayer. 

I've here explained my meaning as clearly as I can. If you still don't grasp it, I don't know what else to say, other than I hope and trust that onlookers will grasp it. 

Yes, I did see the addition, but now I understand, thanks.

There's a name for that actually, you know. It's the fallacy of the burden of proof.

This criteria could be used to justify belief in a whole lot of incompatible things... So then, any belief that cannot be positively falsified, but about which one is convinced that God told him/her that it is "true", or that it is divinely inspired, is fine until one can be proven wrong? I'm sure you understand how dangerous this can be.

[Scott Lloyd]

17 hours ago, Stroopwafel said:

Yes, I did see the addition, but now I understand, thanks.

There's a name for that actually, you know. It's the fallacy of the burden of proof.

This criteria could be used to justify belief in a whole lot of incompatible things... So then, any belief that cannot be positively falsified, but about which one is convinced that God told him/her that it is "true", or that it is divinely inspired, is fine until one can be proven wrong? I'm sure you understand how dangerous this can be.

I understand burden of proof quite well, have spoken of it on multiple occasions here and on other boards. 

It is not a fallacy, as you identify it here. It is a sound concept in logic, argumentation and civil and criminal law. 

In this instance the burden of proof rests on those who attack the Church of Jesus Christ. Why? Because the Church does not purport to prove its verity through physical evidence or, as you put it, "looking at the data." The Church presents its message and invites sincere seekers to ask for and receive their own divine revelation to bear it out. If we can keep the question open -- which is all we seek to do -- the seeker need not feel it would be useless to make the attempt.

The antagonist, on the other hand, by claiming the Church is false, sets for himself the task of disproving the Church's truth claims by means of physical evidence. If he cannot do this, he has failed in his objective and his arguments collapse from their own vacuity. For, you see, he has failed to meet his burden of proof. 

If we were to claim to be able to prove our faith true by physical or secular means, we would bear the burden. But we don't, so the burden rests  on those who attack.

As I've said before, the attacker has taken on a far more daunting task than the defenders of the Church. 

Edited to add: Why is this reasoning dangerous? That's not self-evident. 

Edited January 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

On 1/24/2016 at 7:50 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

I just read through a Gospel Topics essay titled "Book of Mormon and DNA Studies." I saw nothing there that denies AmerInds are descendants of Lehi. Am I missing something? Or were you alluding to a different essay?

From the essay:  "The evidence assembled to date suggests that the majority of Native Americans carry largely Asian DNA.3 Scientists theorize that in an era that predated Book of Mormon accounts, a relatively small group of people migrated from northeast Asia to the Americas by way of a land bridge that connected Siberia to Alaska.4 These people, scientists say, spread rapidly to fill North and South America and were likely the primary ancestors of modern American Indians."

Calling them the "Children of Lehi" isn't accurate according to the essay.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, rockpond said:

From the essay:  "The evidence assembled to date suggests that the majority of Native Americans carry largely Asian DNA.3 Scientists theorize that in an era that predated Book of Mormon accounts, a relatively small group of people migrated from northeast Asia to the Americas by way of a land bridge that connected Siberia to Alaska.4 These people, scientists say, spread rapidly to fill North and South America and were likely the primary ancestors of modern American Indians."

Calling them the "Children of Lehi" isn't accurate according to the essay.

Why is it not accurate? Ancestors are ancestors. My Welsh ancestors, from which my Lloyd surname is derived, are not my predominate ancestors. I have far more ancestors from Sweden. And yet I still have a Welsh ancestral heritage and even a Welsh surname from which it may be inferred, figuratively speaking, that I am a "child of" Wales.

Edited January 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[provoman]

On January 23, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

That today's American Indians are children of Lehi has never been in doubt as far as the Church is concerned.

Even if we accept the probability that there were others in the Americas including the Nephites/Lamanites, the populations would have intermarried by now to the point that Native Americans can confidently surmise that they stem from Lehi.

 

How would you address the change in the introduction of the Book of Mormon from "principle" to "among" in reference to Lehi and Native Americans?

[Jeanne]

28 minutes ago, provoman said:

How would you address the change in the introduction of the Book of Mormon from "principle" to "among" in reference to Lehi and Native Americans?

Really..the inference changes a lot of things.   All aside though..nothing beats the fact that my Dad thought my Lamanite sister was going white!

Edited January 25, 2016 by Jeanne

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, provoman said:

How would you address the change in the introduction of the Book of Mormon from "principle" to "among" in reference to Lehi and Native Americans?

I deem it wise to have made the change; I think it was misleading and reflected a supposition that persisted for a while among the Latter-day Saints but is not borne out by the record.

That said, the change in the wording does not in any way negate the ancestral heritage of today's Native Americans from Lehi. And in terms of the gospel covenant lineage stemming from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Lehi's family are, in fact, the "principal ancestors of the American Indian," just as the Book of Mormon introduction read previously. They are indeed the children of Lehi.

Edited January 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Really..the inference changes a lot of things.   All aside though..nothing beats the fact that my Dad thought my Lamanite sister was going white!

It doesn't really change anything substantially; see my reply post.

 

Edited January 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It doesn't really change any thing substantially; see my reply post.

 

Then why wasn't that changed a long time ago..or for that matter, why was it put that way in the first place?

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

6 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Then why wasn't that changed a long time ago..or for that matter, why was it put that way in the first place?

Then why wasn't that changed a long time ago..or for that matter, why was it put that way in the first place?

I think I already answered that question. To quote from my prior post, it "reflected a supposition that persisted for a while among the Latter-day Saints but is not borne out by the record."

Do you think the wording of the introduction, as it currently stands, negates the belief that today's American Indians are descended from Lehi? If so, why?

Edited January 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think I already answered that question. To quote from my prior post, it "reflected a supposition that persisted for a while among the Latter-day Saints but is not borne out by the record."

Do you think the wording of the introduction, as it currently stands, negates the belief that today's American Indians are descended from Lehi? If so, why?

Before the rewording, it sounded like they were the only ones there..then when the DNA stuff came out..suddenly they were among the principle ancestors.  That gives the meaning to me that it is a reason why there is a problem with the DNA.  In any case, I will concede here..as it is just another word changed in the B of M.

[Calm]

The "principal ancestors" requires more than one group for one to stand out as the principal/most important group so I don't see how it can be claimed that written that way makes them the only ones there.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/principal

Quote

:  most important, consequential, or influential :  chief <the principal ingredient> <the region's principal city>

FYI:  http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695226008/Debate-renewed-with-change-in-Book-of-Mormon-introduction.html?pg=all

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

The "principal ancestors" requires more than one group for one to stand out as the principal/most important group so I don't see how it can be claimed that written that way makes them the only ones there.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/principal

FYI:  http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695226008/Debate-renewed-with-change-in-Book-of-Mormon-introduction.html?pg=all

Interesting snippet from the above Deseret News link, quoting John L. Sorensen:
 

Quote

 

He said several LDS scholars have noted for decades that the assumption about "principal ancestors" was inaccurate.

The late Elder Richard L. Evans, a member of the church's Quorum of the Twelve from 1953 to 1971, described the Book of Mormon as "part of a record both sacred and secular of prophets and people, who (with supplementary groups), were among the ancestors of the American Indians." The description — approved by the church's First Presidency — was printed in a book titled "Religions of America," by Leo Rosten, which was first published in London in 1957 and subsequently reprinted in 1963 and 1975, Sorensen said.

With questions among LDS scholars about its accuracy, why didn't the change come sooner?

Sorensen said he believes it's simply "the principle of inertia." Such things are "not likely to be changed unless someone thinks there is something to be gained by making the change, or to be lost by not making the change."

"I don't think it means very much for anyone," he said. "The assumptions may have been and may be in the minds of some that the previous phrasing had substance to it. As a matter of fact, it was a sheer accident of someone — probably (Elder) Bruce McConkie — regarding 'principal ancestors.' No one checked it or questioned it, so it was put in the introduction."

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Before the rewording, it sounded like they were the only ones there..then when the DNA stuff came out..suddenly they were among the principle ancestors.  That gives the meaning to me that it is a reason why there is a problem with the DNA.  In any case, I will concede here..as it is just another word changed in the B of M.

The introduction is not part of the Book of Mormon proper. It is part of the ancillary study aids that are included with the book but which are not part of the scriptural canon.

 

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The introduction is not part of the Book of Mormon proper. It is part of the ancillary study aids that are included with the book but which are not part of the scriptural canon.

 

My mistake..I meant to edit that but decided not to bother. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

My mistake..I meant to edit that but decided not to bother. 

Noted.

 

[provoman]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The introduction is not part of the Book of Mormon proper. It is part of the ancillary study aids that are included with the book but which are not part of the scriptural canon.

 

Based on what authority is your premise grounded - that the introduction is just a study aid?

[Scott Lloyd]

46 minutes ago, provoman said:

Based on what authority is your premise grounded - that the introduction is just a study aid?

The fact that it is not part of the Nephite record and hence did not appear with the book when it was published in 1829. In fact, the introduction was not published until 1981, with the last major reworking of the publication of the scriptures by the Church. It was never presented before a body of the Church membership for a sustaining vote as an addition to the canon as was, say, Declaration 2 in the Doctrine and Covenants.

Nothing in the introduction leads to the reasonable conclusion that it is part of the scriptural text, any more than are the captions that go with the Arnold Friberg paintings or the page numbers that appear on respective pages.

Do you really think the introduction is meant to be regarded as part of the scriptural text? That supposition astounds me, frankly.

 

Edited January 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[theplains]

On 23/01/2016 at 4:47 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

That today's American Indians are children of Lehi has never been in doubt as far as the Church is concerned.

I would agree with you.  I was a little surprised they made that change in the Introduction 
to the Book of Mormon when passages in the Doctrine and Covenants are pretty clear who the 
Lamanites are (28:8-9, 14; 30:6; 32:2; 54:8).

Regards,
Jim

[Stroopwafel]

19 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I understand burden of proof quite well, have spoken of it on multiple occasions here and on other boards. 

It is not a fallacy, as you identify it here. It is a sound concept in logic, argumentation and civil and criminal law. 

In this instance the burden of proof rests on those who attack the Church of Jesus Christ. Why? Because the Church does not purport to prove its verity through physical evidence or, as you put it, "looking at the data." The Church presents its message and invites sincere seekers to ask for and receive their own divine revelation to bear it out. If we can keep the question open -- which is all we seek to do -- the seeker need not feel it would be useless to make the attempt.

The antagonist, on the other hand, by claiming the Church is false, sets for himself the task of disproving the Church's truth claims by means of physical evidence. If he cannot do this, he has failed in his objective and his arguments collapse from their own vacuity. For, you see, he has failed to meet his burden of proof. 

If we were to claim to be able to prove our faith true by physical or secular means, we would bear the burden. But we don't, so the burden rests  on those who attack.

As I've said before, the attacker has taken on a far more daunting task than the defenders of the Church. 

Edited to add: Why is this reasoning dangerous? That's not self-evident. 

It doesn't matter whether or not the claim is about being able to prove your (or anyone's) faith true "by physical or secular means." Of course the Church doesn't claim to be able to prove itself by these standards. Most churches don't. So the distinction you're making to get away with it is irrelevant. What you're doing is a textbook case of another fallacy called appeal to ignorance (where ignorance stands for "a lack of contrary evidence"), which is usually used to shift the burden of proof.

Did you read the link I provided at first? This is relevant: "The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever."

Of course, in some sense, you could say that the "antagonists" are the ones making a claim, i.e., that the Church is false, and then feeling reinforced in your position since no one can disprove it. But that's not how any of this works. You said it yourself, the Church is making truth claims, and again, it doesn't matter whether the Church contends or not that these claims can be proved by means of physical evidence. That may come across as snarky, but as you said it: "If you still don't grasp it, I don't know what else to say, other than I hope and trust that onlookers will grasp it."

I'll also add that saying the Church doesn't seek to provide any sort of physical evidence to substantiate its "one true Church" claim (or of any derivative thereof) seems a lot like turning a blind eye on, you know, the whole Book of Mormon deal.

Finally, as to why this kind of reasoning may be dangerous, I'm sure you can come up with something if you use a bit of imagination. One broad example would be religious fanatism, which is no stranger to it (and no, I'm not equating the LDS church with religious fanatism).

[provoman]

On January 25, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

The fact that it is not part of the Nephite record and hence did not appear with the book when it was published in 1829. In fact, the introduction was not published until 1981, with the last major reworking of the publication of the scriptures by the Church. It was never presented before a body of the Church membership for a sustaining vote as an addition to the canon as was, say, Declaration 2 in the Doctrine and Covenants.

Nothing in the introduction leads to the reasonable conclusion that it is part of the scriptural text, any more than are the captions that go with the Arnold Friberg paintings or the page numbers that appear on respective pages.

Do you really think the introduction is meant to be regarded as part of the scriptural text? That supposition astounds me, frankly.

 

 

I think it is benefical, during Gospel themed discussions, to make very clear what is opinion and what are actual teachings of the Church.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 1/26/2016 at 5:29 PM, theplains said:

I would agree with you.  I was a little surprised they made that change in the Introduction 
to the Book of Mormon when passages in the Doctrine and Covenants are pretty clear who the 
Lamanites are (28:8-9, 14; 30:6; 32:2; 54:8).

Regards,
Jim

The change in the introduction does not negate the understanding that today's American Indians are descended from Lehi and hence is not inconsistent with the scriptures you cite here.

Do you think it does? I'm puzzled why you would think so

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

 

I think it is benefical, during Gospel themed discussions, to make very clear what is opinion and what are actual teachings of the Church.

I've never known the Church to teach that the introduction to the Book of Mormon is part of the scriptural canon.