Book of Mormon Intro Modified

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

See, if you'd come out of that fantasy land, you and I might have some fruitful discussions.

I tend to think you and woot should discuss things, that could be amusing.

[Sleeping in EQ]

The double-bind here is that, on the one hand, the 1981 wording in the Introduction to the BoM has been used to bludgeon people who have divergent views. "The prophet approved of it's inclusion, he knows better than you," etc.

Now that the wording has been changed, these folks want to sing a different tune. "It wasn't a big deal, who cares, nit picking," and so on.

It's the same double bind on the level of the text that is sometimes thrown at those who wanted the wording change. If there had been no wording change, defenders of the 1981 wording would talk about how it's been there for years and years with the prophet's knowledge, and so those of you who want a change are wrong. Now that there has been a change, the tune changes to, "So, you think you knew before the prophet did?"

If that isn't sour grapes, what is?

It's the absurdity of closed-mindedness. Those who pay attention, who ask questions, and who look for answers in this area are simply aware of the advantages of a wording change. They are completely justified in finding some satistfaction in the change (and therein in the leaders who made it), but that won't stop anti-intellectuals from raining on the parade. That's right, the "ingrate intellectual crowd" is pleased with something Church leaders have done, and the fundies can't help but criticize them for it.

There's a wording change in the Intro to the BoM and many of the scholarly and intellectual types in the Church are enthused. Why are they enthused? Because they care about the BoM and feel affirmed in their study of it. And the fundies are the ones, who, in the face of a change to the introduction of scripture, are in "nothing to see, move along" mode. They have little room in their dogma for change, and so they seek to minimize its significance when it comes along. They are the ones, frankly, who could really benefit from paying attention to these things.

I value scripture. I value how it's introduced. I've been wanting a change to this very wording for years. Right now, I'm pleased as punch with my leaders who went forward with this. Like Adam, I suspect that it has something to do with turnover in the highest quourms and presidencies of the Church.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

The double-bind here is that, on the one hand, the 1981 wording in the Introduction to the BoM has been used to bludgeon people who have divergent views. "The prophet approved of it's inclusion, he knows better than you," etc.

Now that the wording has been changed, these folks want to sing a different tune. "It wasn't a big deal, who cares, nit picking," and so on.

It's the same double bind on the level of the text that is sometimes thrown at those who wanted the wording change. If there had been no wording change, defenders of the 1981 wording would talk about how it's been there for years and years with the prophet's knowledge, and so those of you who want a change are wrong. Now that there has been a change, the tune changes to, "So, you think you knew before the prophet did?"

If that isn't sour grapes, what is?

It's the absurdity of closed-mindedness. Those who pay attention, who ask questions, and who look for answers in this area are simply aware of the advantages of a wording change. They are completely justified in finding some satistfaction in the change (and therein in the leaders who made it), but that won't stop anti-intellectuals from raining on the parade. That's right, the "ingrate intellectual crowd" is pleased with something Church leaders have done, and the fundies can't help but criticize them for it.

There's a wording change in the Intro to the BoM and many of the scholarly and intellectual types in the Church are enthused. Why are they enthused? Because they care about the BoM and feel affirmed in their study of it. And the fundies are the ones, who, in the face of a change to the introduction of scripture, are in "nothing to see, move along" mode. They have little room in their dogma for change, and so they seek to minimize its significance when it comes along. They are the ones, frankly, who could really benefit from paying attention to these things.

I value scripture. I value how it's introduced. I've been wanting a change to this very wording for years. Right now, I'm pleased as punch with my leaders who went forward with this. Like Adam, I suspect that it has something to do with turnover in the highest quourms and presidencies of the Church.

Nice job taking two separate arguments coming from two separate people, and making it sound like one argument from one person.

Despite the word change, the "relevant" fact still remains:

The church maintains that the peoples of the Book of Mormon lived on the American continent and that their descendants are still a part of the current native population.

Mathematically speaking, 0% < "Among" <= 100%

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Nice job taking two separate arguments coming from two separate people, and making it sound like one argument from one person.

Despite the word change, the "relevant" fact still remains:

The church maintains that the peoples of the Book of Mormon lived on the American continent and their descendants are still a part of the current native population.

Mathematically speaking, 0%< "Among" <= 100%

And removing "principal", probably means less than fifty and much less than that.

It's a tacit recognition of the limited geography theory.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Nice job taking two separate arguments coming from two separate people, and making it sound like one argument from one person.

Despite the word change, the "relevant" fact still remains:

The church maintains that the peoples of the Book of Mormon lived on the American continent and their descendants are still a part of the current native population.

Mathematically speaking, 0% < "Among" <= 100%

I'm not trying to make anything sound like any one person. I'm addressing myself to a more general discourse.

To state the obvious, there is more than one relevant fact. This recent change is supporting evidence of such, is it not?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

And removing "principal", probably means less than fifty and much less than that.

It's a tacit recognition of the limited geography theory.

IMO, it's an acknowledgement that we really don't know what proportion it is, so it's better just to leave it as open-ended as possible.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

The double-bind here is that, on the one hand, the 1981 wording in the Introduction to the BoM has been used to bludgeon people who have divergent views. "The prophet approved of it's inclusion, he knows better than you," etc.

Now that the wording has been changed, these folks want to sing a different tune. "It wasn't a big deal, who cares, nit picking," and so on.

It's the same double bind on the level of the text that is sometimes thrown at those who wanted the wording change. If there had been no wording change, defenders of the 1981 wording would talk about how it's been there for years and years with the prophet's knowledge, and so those of you who want a change are wrong. Now that there has been a change, the tune changes to, "So, you think you knew before the prophet did?"

If that isn't sour grapes, what is?

It's the absurdity of closed-mindedness. Those who pay attention, who ask questions, and who look for answers in this area are simply aware of the advantages of a wording change. They are completely justified in finding some satistfaction in the change (and therein in the leaders who made it), but that won't stop anti-intellectuals from raining on the parade. That's right, the "ingrate intellectual crowd" is pleased with something Church leaders have done, and the fundies can't help but criticize them for it.

There's a wording change in the Intro to the BoM and many of the scholarly and intellectual types in the Church are enthused. Why are they enthused? Because they care about the BoM and feel affirmed in their study of it. And the fundies are the ones, who, in the face of a change to the introduction of scripture, are in "nothing to see, move along" mode. They have little room in their dogma for change, and so they seek to minimize its significance when it comes along. They are the ones, frankly, who could really benefit from paying attention to these things.

I value scripture. I value how it's introduced. I've been wanting a change to this very wording for years. Right now, I'm pleased as punch with my leaders who went forward with this. Like Adam, I suspect that it has something to do with turnover in the highest quourms and presidencies of the Church.

I think Indy has made the point before that it's not so much the questions, but the tone. It's not, "Gee, I think the language in the Intro is stronger than it needs to be, based on the DNA evidence we have. They might want to look at that. Maybe they know something we don't."

Instead, it's:

Originally Posted by Adam

It is not that he hadn't gotten around to telling his apostles and prophets yet Tex. It is that they weren't listening because they are somewhat prideful as natural men and don't want to admit they screwed it up in the first place. You get enough fresh blood that isn't emotionally tied to the mistake and it changes.

I'm sure you can see the difference.

With respect to bludgeoning, I don't know that I have ever bludgeoned anyone on this particular issue. I honestly don't see the big deal in the change. If there's one thing I have strict confidence in, it's the origin of the Book of Mormon. It's not as though the introduction was dictated by revelation like the D&C, though I concede it is only one step removed from it.

[BYU71]

How would you all like to have grown up when I did. Grown up when all this stuff that is now changing was taught as strict doctrine.

My problem with the honor code was when I went to BYU I loved the honor code. I loved the fact girls had to wear dresses. I loved the fact that men couldn't wear levi's.

I loved the fact that boys and girls couldn't kiss on campus even if they were married.

How shattering do you think it was for me to see those stalwarts of values, honor and integrity done away with. Shattering I tell you, shattering.

However, I still was able to hold onto the great truths like black people were fence sitters, the Catholic Church was the "great whore" and the Indians were the decendents of the Lamanites. Please don't tell me any of these things are not held to be truths anymore.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BYU71

How would you all like to have grown up when I did. Grown up when all this stuff that is now changing was taught as strict doctrine.

My problem with the honor code was when I went to BYU I loved the honor code. I loved the fact girls had to wear dresses. I loved the fact that men couldn't wear levi's.

I loved the fact that boys and girls couldn't kiss on campus even if they were married.

How shattering do you think it was for me to see those stalwarts of values, honor and integrity done away with. Shattering I tell you, shattering.

However, I still was able to hold onto the great truths like black people were fence sitters, the Catholic Church was the "great whore" and the Indians were the decendents of the Lamanites. Please don't tell me any of these things are not held to be truths anymore.

And having a girl change your oil won't send you to hades?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

I think Indy has made the point before that it's not so much the questions, but the tone. It's not, "Gee, I think the language in the Intro is stronger than it needs to be, based on the DNA evidence we have. They might want to look at that. Maybe they know something we don't."

Instead, it's:



I'm sure you can see the difference.

With respect to bludgeoning, I don't know that I have ever bludgeoned anyone on this particular issue. I honestly don't see the big deal in the change. If there's one thing I have strict confidence in, it's the origin of the Book of Mormon. It's not as though the introduction was dictated by revelation like the D&C, though I concept it is only one step removed from it.

I can see the difference. I'm not sure how pride factors into things, but I am confident that there must be an inclination to ask, to seek, and to be open to possibilities. Our leaders are busy. That they took the time to make this change signals to me that it's important.

I do see a big deal in the change, and I had a more general discourse in mind with my comments.