|Book of Mormon change: Instead of being the "principal ancestors" of American Indians, Lamanites are now...
|Nov 02, 2007
|Prof. Plum ( also includes Salt Lake Tribune interview about this topic - 2nd post)
|Book of Mormon change: Instead of being the
"principal ancestors" of American Indians, Lamanites are now......“among
the ancestors of the American Indians.” [The original
phrase and the changes are noted in
Red and bold for emphasis]
In the Introduction to the Book of Mormon the second paragraph reads:
“The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon. The record gives an account of the two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C., and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.”
This was included in the first printing runs of the Doubleday Edition.
In the latest printing of the Doubleday Edition of the Book of Mormon, the last sentence was changed to read:
“...After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians.”
The interesting thing is this change is not published anywhere. Additionally, the new Doubleday Edition still lists itself as a first edition. I am no publisher, but my understanding was when you made changes, you listed it as a second, third, etc. edition. The second edition also indicates that it is still first printing, which would be impossible since the change was made. [post further down explains the publishing numbering practices]
Next post is by Simon in oz who wrote on the Book of Mormon and DNA
|Book of Mormon introduction - Salt Lake Tribune article
|Nov 07, 2007
|Simon in oz (interviewed for the Salt Lake Tribune article)
There may be an article in the weekend SL Tribune [Nov. 2007] on the recent change to the introduction of the Book of Mormon. I was asked for my opinion by a reporter and some of you might be interested. She posed 4 questions.
1) What do you think of the change?
I think the change is very significant and that it was inevitable. The manner in which the church has made this change disappoints me. No announcement, no acknowledgement of any error and no concern for thousands of members who struggle to accept the Book of Mormon as historical in the face of devastating scientific evidence that it isn’t.
2) What do you think it's significance is?
The Mormon Church is conceding that mainstream scientific theories about the colonization of the Americas have significant elements of truth in them. Since its founding the church has made numerous religious claims within the scientific domains of New World archaeology and anthropology. These claims have been so clearly exposed as false that the church is now retreating from them.
3) What do you think prompted the change?
From the moment the DNA evidence arrived it was inevitable that the original statement would have to go. Over 8,000 American Indians have been DNA tested and traces of Jewish ancestry have so far eluded the scientists. DNA has revealed very clearly how closely related American Indians are to their Siberian ancestors. The Lamanites are invisible, not principal ancestors.
4) Do you think this helps the LDS Church with the problems posed by DNA research?
Changing the introduction doesn’t change the book. The Book of Mormon itself gives the overwhelming impression to the reader that its people are central to the colonization history of the Americas. There is no mention of non-Israelite others, the New World is portrayed as an empty land preserved for Lehite inheritance and the book describes massive civilizations populated by descendants of Hebrews. Now the Hebrew Lamanites appear to have vanished.
I think the change raises more pressing questions for those seeking the truth. If science was right all along about the dominant Siberian ancestry of American Indians, are they also right about the timing of their entry? There is abundant evidence, some now coming from the DNA research, that their Siberian ancestors arrived over 12,000 years ago. How does such a date fit with other LDS beliefs, such as a universal flood?
The following is from the Salt Lake Tribune Nov. 8, 2007. [reference: http://www.sltrib.com/faith/ci_7403990]
"Many Mormons, including
several church presidents, have taught that the Americas were largely
inhabited by Book of Mormon peoples. In 1971, Church President Spencer W.
Kimball said that Lehi, the family patriarch, was "the ancestor of all of
the Indian and Mestizo tribes in North and South and Central America and in
the islands of the sea."
Related information: DNA and the Book
of Mormon. Read the
article in the USA Today.
The story that Dr. Simon Southerton [Simon in oz] submitted to us as to why he left Mormonism
due to DNA evidence is at whyleft125.htm.
an interesting discussion on Mormon apologetics and DNA is at Mormon391
LA Times: The Book of Mormon and DNA: Book of Mormon and DNA
|It now contradicts other scripture and church history
|Nov 03 14:03
|Remember that in Joseph Smith's History in the PoGP he
says that the angel Moroni told him that the plates gave "an account of THE
FORMER INHABITANTS OF THIS CONTINENT." Not "some of" or "many of" but "THE
Sounds pretty all-inclusive to me.
It appears that God did not really make things very clear to his prophet Joseph Smith, who seems to be unaware of any other races in the Americas than those depicted in the Book of Mormon. In the famouse "Wentworth Letter" (Hist of the Church 4:537ff) Smith says that the angel informed him "concerning THE aboriginal inhabitants of this country and shown who they were and from whence they came..."
No mention of Mongolians.
He continues: "In this ... book the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its FIRST SETTLEMENT by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel... American in ancient times has been inhabited by TWO distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites... The second race came directly from the city of Jerusalem about six hundred years before Christ. They were PRINCIPALLY Israelites..."
Why didn't God tell his prophet the whole story?
|Quote posted previously that you should probably read again...
|Nov 08 16:43
|In 1971, Spencer W. Kimball taught...
"The term Lamanite includes all Indians and Indian mixtures, such as the Polynesians, the Guatemalans, the Peruvians, as well as the Sioux, the Apache, the Mohawk, the Navajo, and others. It is a large group of great people." ("Of Royal Blood," Ensign, July 1971, p. 7).
The mass of members still believe this, and this will continue to be taught in Sunday School and among the faithful. Every now and then, some young TBM will start to question their testimony when they hear about DNA of Americans not matching up with Israelites. They will then be introduced to FARMS papers, and be pointed to the phrase in the Introduction to the Book of Mormon that states that Lamanites are only "among the ancestors" of Native Americans. Young TBM's testimony will be shorn up, and he will slowly be ushered into "Mormon Intellectual" circles and buy books by Hugh Nibley.
|The online version still says "principle ancestors"...I just copied it for posterity...link
|Nov 07 23:50
|JW the Inquizzinator
|Are you our DNA Simon?
|Nov 07 23:14
|I take it you must be our Simon from down under? If so, good going. I wonder who the reporter was that called you. Peggy Fletcher Stack? And I had not heard about the BOM Preface change. Now I need to check that out. Does anyone have the new Preface? I imagine it is something like the BOM being a history of something less than the entire continent?
|Guilty as charged
|Nov 07 23:48
|Simon in Oz
|Yes, I'm your DNA Simon and the reporter was Peggy Stack.
|Nov 08 04:28
|That's 4001 changes to the BoM! AND! This change has NOTHING to do with grammar or spelling!!
|OMG!! This could be big! n/t
|it is just a weensy change
|Nov 02 20:53
|heck, it hardly is noteworthy.
double OMG!! Those people have to cover their a$$e$ don't they.
My god, that PR department sure must be busy.
|preach my gospel
|Nov 02 21:14
|In the Preach My Gospel book it says on page 38
" These gold Plates contained the writings of prophets giving an account of God's dealings with SOME of the ancient Inhabitants Of The Americas."
Prof plum ...I'd be grateful if you could email me the scans .It will help in my exit councilling work amongst Mormon friends ...
Gold plates/ Ancient Inhabitants ? What a nonsense ! lol
|There can be several printings of a First Edition...Here's how to tell.
|Nov 02 21:21
|Often on the copyright page you can find...
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
With each successive printing the last number is omitted;
10 9 8 7 6
Would mean that the copy you are looking at is the 6th printing of the book.
|Some Conclusion About This Change
|Nov 03 07:53
|1) JS lied when he said it was the most correct book
upon the earth. How can the Church trust any of his other statements he
2) If the Book is true, then why do not any of the other cultures that lied talk about the terrible destruction that occurred at the death of Christ. What about the 3 days of darkness. Surely that would have made it into their legends. Maybe I am missing something, so please correct me.
3) The fact that the Church has general conference to "instruct the people" and they have not been instructed in this shift in thinking should raise a red flag. Why would a corporation allow its employees (members) to sell a different product than they are producing. (Ex: How many TBM still teach that it's all about the Lamanites? How many TBM still bear testimony to that fact) How many TBM still believe the prophets saying that the all the people in America were descendent's of Lehi? Church leaders and the Corporation have a right to correct false teachings. After all the 13th Article of Faith talks about honesty. So if the church has new evidence, then they should be teaching to correct these incorrect older teachings. Not bring it in under cover and still expecting people to pay their 10% for things they know have been taught as lies.
3) Why did the people in the BoM not see any other people? After all they were numbered in the millions and traveled great distances. Surely they would have run across them?
4) How does the Church explain the fact that in the BoM it is taught that only God allows people He chooses are allowed to be here? If there were other people here, where are their records to testify about their divine existence and arrival here. The church teaches that Lehi was directed to be here, that Columbus was directed to be here, so according to BoM teachings any other group should have been directed to be here and there should be evidence of that divine arrival. Am I missing something here?
5) If the church teaches that the Limited geographical Theory is what the BoM is all about, how did Moroni NOT come across any of these people on his travels to the Hill Cumorah? Why did he not tell us these are not the Lamanites I knew but another people? Surely he would have know the differences between Lamanites he grew up with and fought and those who hunted him down? Yet in the BoM and as church leaders have explained over time, the battle at the Hill Cumorah was between the Nephites and the Lamanites. I have sat at the hill Cumorah many years as a child and a teenager and listened to GA"s, (members of the 12, sustained as PROPHETS, SEERS AND REVELATORS) bear testimony that this is the place of the final battle. Did they lie to me as a child and teenager? Shame on them! Notice how in middle 70's they did away with those meetings and the attednance of the GA's. I noticed it and wondered why. Now I know why. They knew it was fraud back then and stopped the Sunday stuff at the hill hoping no one would quote them anymore.
The most important part of this post is this. The Church has a Prophet, GBH. he has been given many awards, He wrote a book about standing for something. WHY does he not have the balls to stand up in conference and explain to the church and the world this shift in the Churches teaching? The more I read changes being made by anyone other than the prophet, the less respect I have for that man. If he approved these changes he has a right to inform the Church. If he did not approve these chances then why did God or Christ (who is at the head of the Church) not inform him of what is going on? Clearly in my mind, this shift in thinking clearly shows me that the top brethren know that the church has been based on lies from the beginning and they do not know what to do.
Any other comments?
|Why printers use the code
|Nov 03 15:07
|The first printing is set in lead to read:
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
With each subsequent printing, one digit is shaved off the metal printing plate Easier to remove one character than to reset the page.
(7th grade print shop)
|Will the Deseret edition & the Doubleday edition remain divergent? N/T
|Sounds like an Orwellian trial flag. How interesting.
|This makes the case for
|Nov 03 11:35
|keeping those old LDS books instead of throwing them
away once one leaves the church. Shortly after leaving the church, I was so
P.O'd. that I tossed out nearly all of the books I had accumulated over 30
years of membership. That was A LOT of books. Today, I much regret having
done that. Fortunately, I kept some books among which are two copies of the
1981 edition of the BoM with the working "principle ancestors of the
American Indians". The reason I value that is because, whenever the argument
may arise about the Lamanites being only one small group among many
indigenous groups, I can say, "Ah, ah, ah, not so according to my old BoM!"
Of course, the official word will be to deny they ever had that wording and that the only thing that matters is what the prophet says today but that opens an entirely new can of worms.
|Re: This makes the case for
|Nov 03 11:45
|I, too, was glad I had my 1981 version to look this up. I won't throw it away after all....
|The Article by Elder Oaks Posted on This Site Now makes Sense
|Nov 03 11:46
|When he gave the talk I thought something was wrong. I
had 3 courses of law in my undergraduate years at University. But I was a
TBM then and knew he was a GA and should trust him.
Now I see the bigger picture.
He is a lawyer and a GA. What ever he says must be true and we are to trust it. That is what TBM's are taught. So over time the Church changes things by having him give talk. Few pay attention to the content. Later the Church can come back and say we have been honest, here is how the changes were announced. It's Animal Farm all the way.
Now if I could only get my TBM wife from paying tithing to this organization.
If the Church had nothing to hide they would be up front. They have no trouble telling us what to wear to Church (white shirts). What to wear on our bodies and ears. But they can be clear on something as important as the BoM.
|This change only creates more problems for BOM apologists.....
|Nov 03 12:07
|Obviously, the church made this change as an
acknowledgement of DNA research which confirms the Asian ancestry of native
Americans. However, that concession renders false the official church
doctrine which holds that human life is only 6,000 or so years old---because
the DNA and other research shows that the Beringian emigrations began more
than 12,000 years ago.
Also, as I've pointed out many times before---including a post in Reed Smith's thread today---the LDS doctrine of the literal global flood negates the idea that any "non-Book of Mormon people" lived in the Americas before the "Jaredites" arrived. Mopologists cannot believe the church's teachings which state that the human race began again from the few survivors aboard Noah's ark somewhere in the Middle East, while simultaneously believing that Asian-descended people were populating the Americas.
Furthermore, a basic premise of the BOM is to provide an explanation for the dark skin color of Amerinds. According to the BOM, it's the result of God's curse upon the "Lamanites" for their wickedness. Since *all* Amerinds are dark-skinned, then it logically follows that all modern Amerinds are descended from the "accursed Lamanites." And of course, that's exactly what the "modern prophets" from Joseph Smith on down have taught. That's exactly why church leaders have called modern Amerinds "Lamanites," and have worked to convert them to the church---to try to correct their "accursed" condition. It's the reason why SWK mentioned in a speech back in the 1950s that some Indians who had joined the church were turning lighter.
Point here is that every time the apologists alter their BOM arguments to fit modern scientific research, they unwittingly create several other problems for the BOM's authenticity.
|'The principal ancestors' vs 'among the ancestors'
|Nov 08 16:22
|Is there a difference? I'm not convinced. The SLtrib
article stated that it spoke volumes, but I am not sure that it means
First of all, church writers have always stated that there were more civilizations than just the lamanites and the nephites in the Americas. There is also the doctrine that the Book of Mormon is but one of many accounts from the people around here.
Secondly, the phrase 'principal ancestors' to me denotes that there were more than one source. Every time I read it I thought of a land where there were Lamanites and Nephites and many other people. If there is a principal source, there has to be a secondary as well.
So, why change it if they both mean the same? As far as I know the Mormon church has never said that the Lamanites were the ONLY people that were the ancestors to the Native Americans.
Perhaps they are doing it for publicity? Perhaps they did it because people don't understand the world 'principal?' To me it seems meaningless.
|Aha, the generational shifts....
|Nov 08 16:33
|been through it
|Skep, when I left the Church only 15 years ago, I left
with the understanding that the Book of Mormon peoples were the ONLY
inhabitants of the Americas. Both sides of my family are original Joseph
Smith followers, so I hardly think I got it wrong. Not when pioneer runs
through your veins like that.
I never heard that the Book of Mormon was "but one of many accounts."
I thought every Indian I ever met was a descendant of Lehi just as I was a descendant of /insert real names here/ who crossed over with Brigham Young.
You are only 26. This proves that these subtle shifts in doctrine don't take long to re-write history.
Actually, they are not subtle. But apparently people who are old enough to know they are not subtle somehow find a way to "put in on a shelf."
But believe me, the things you state as old hat doctrine is not. Not at all. It shocks someone like me who went to Primary and was RS prez and so forth---but happened to stop attending 15 years ago and so remembers clearly what the teachings were as of 15 years ago.
|I do not doubt it, ideas and cultures definitely shift
|Nov 08 16:46
|However, I do remember being taught the story of how
Brigham Young (might have been Joseph Smith), walked into a cave where he
found hundreds of different records all on golden plates. They all came from
different historians, who compiled books kind of like Mormon did.
Unfortunaetly, I can't find that story anywhere. Maybe it was just one of
those Mormon myths.
I mentioned this before too, but you also have the people of Zarahemla (who came over a bit earlier than Lehi) and the Jaredites (who were destroyed). In 3rd Nephi it talks about all of the people all over the land coming together. At the end of Alma we have people moving all across the land and mixing with other cultures.
|Given the current back-pedaling spin of the church, your confusion is understandable...
|Nov 08 18:39
|However,you are obviously talking about Brigham's
retelling of Oliver and Joe's Hill Cumorah Cave Hallucination:
". . . I lived right in the country where the plates were found from which the Book of Mormon was translated, and I know a great many things pertaining to that country. I believe I will take the liberty to tell you of another circumstance that will be as marvelous as anything can be. This is an incident in the life of Oliver Cowdery, but he did not take the liberty of telling such things in meeting as I take . . . Oliver Cowdery went with the Prophet Joseph when he deposited these plates. Joseph did not translate all of the plates; there was a portion of them sealed, which you can learn from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants. When Joseph got the plates, the angel instructed him to carry them back to the hill Cumorah, which he did. Oliver says that when Joseph and Oliver went there, the hill opened, and they walked into a cave, in which there was a large and spacious room. He says he did not think, at the time, whether they had the light of the sun or artificial light; but that it was just as light as day. They laid the plates on a table; it was a large table that stood in the room. Under this table there was a pile of plates as much as two feet high, and there were altogether in this room more plates than probably many wagon loads; they were piled up in the corners and along the walls. The first time they went there the sword of Laban hung upon the wall; but when they went again it had been taken down and laid upon the table across the gold plates; it was unsheathed, and on it was written these words, 'This sword will never be sheathed again until the Kingdoms of this world become the kingdom of our God and his Christ.' I tell you this as coming not only from Oliver Cowdery, but others who were familiar with it, and who understood it just as well as we understood coming to this meeting, enjoying the day, . . ." (Sermon by Brigham Young, June 17, 1877, Journal of Discourses 19:38-39).
In context, they are referring to the records of the people referred to in the Book of Mormon--hence the reference to the Sword of Laban. Ironically, this account by Briggy is useful evidence supporting the idea that Josesph and his "Witnesses" never actually saw physical plates, but instead conjured up images in their imagination, which they saw with their "spiritual eyes". (Hint: There is no physical cave inside the Hill Cumorah, full of plates.)
The end of Alma still only refers to Nephites and Lamanites, there are no references to any "other" mysterious group of people who were not descended from Lehi. In fact, the Church has traditionally taught that Poynesians are descendants of the group that sailed with Hagoth and, since the Polynesians have relatively dark skin, they are therefore...drum roll...you guessed it: LAMANITES!
Let's go back a few decades in time--a time when, at BYU, there was a popular singing and dancing group called the "Lamanite Generation". Oh, they had entertained and thrilled General Authorities for years and years. They sang about their heritage as Lamanites and how they would blossom as roses, just as prophesied in the Book of Mormon. They were Navajo, Apaches, Eskimos, Maoris, descendants of various aboriginal peoples of Central America and South America. AND THEY ALL BORE TESTIMONY OF THEIR LAMANITE HERITAGE! Not one of the inspired prophets, seers and revelators at that time ever even thought to tell these performers that, for many of these kids, their ancestors probably weren't really Lamanites, per se.
You are living in a different church, Skeptical. It's not your fault--it's just more evidence of the duplicitous, Orwellian nature of the organization and all of its memory holes.
Ether 2: 7-9
7 And the Lord would not suffer that they should stop beyond the sea in the wilderness, but he would that they should come forth even unto the aland of promise, which was choice above all other lands, which the Lord God had preserved for a righteous people.
8 And he had sworn in his wrath unto the brother of Jared, that whoso should possess this land of promise, from that time henceforth and forever, should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fulness of his wrath should come upon them.
9 And now, we can behold the decrees of God concerning this land, that it is a land of promise; and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall serve God, or they shall be swept off when the fulness of his wrath shall come upon them. And the fulness of his wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity.
|Good thing that we have a living profit to guide us in these latter days. n/t
|The leaders of the church are stealthy people. They like stealth.
|Nov 05 17:32
|I've always been disturbed and amused (maybe even
bemused) at the way that important changes are made so stealthily by the
Prophet and Apostles. Nothing is said to the peasants/ordinary members in
conference. No explanation is offered in any of the Church's big-circulation
publications (Church News, Ensign, etc.). No announcements from the First
Presidency to be read at Stake Conference or at Ward meeting.
Nope. They just come in like thieves in the night and rewrite an important part of the Mormon Matrix code and reboot the program, pretending that everything is the same as it always was.
I guess what disturbs me the most is the way that my Mormon loved ones (all ordinary, devoted members of the Church) fail to even notice: (1) the fact that something of significance has been changed, and (2) the fact that it was changed by stealth.
You even find long-time, temple-going members these days who will deny that any throat-slitting and disembowelment pantomimes were ever a part of the temple endowment ritual.
Obviously, to those of us who have our eyes open, the "Brethren" have known for at least a decade or so that that 150+ years worth of core doctrine and teachings of the Church concerning the "Lamanites" is completely and undeniably wrong.
But rather than tell the members what they know and now believe, these so-called mouthpieces of god stealthily attempt to downplay the traditional doctrine/teachings and, bit-by-bit, stealthily delete references from official publications of the church. Just as has been the case with the changes to the temple ceremony, it is apparent that their hope is that a new generation, growing up in a church that no longer talks about Lamanites in the present tense and which has stealthily expunged references to the living Native Americans as being Lamanites, will not be aware of the former doctrine and will not even notice that a big change in core belief has occurred.
I guess there are some older Native American and Polynesian members who believed all the hooey about their heritage as Lamanites, who must be feeling a bit strange about how their "heritage" is no longer a subject that the Mormon leaders care to talk about. Similarly, there are undoubtedly many members of the "Lamanite Generation" song-and-dance troupe at BYU, who must be a bit mystified at why that successful organization's name was changed without explanation. And there must be some missionaries who served on "Lamanite" missions who wonder why the Lamanite connection is no longer talked about. Unfortunately, for most of them, being mystified and a bit confused is as far as their thinking will go.
Welcome to the Church of Orwellian Newspeak of Latter-day Sheep.
|The BoM intro is NOT doctrine, but official proclamations ARE.
|Nov 08 21:22
|Feeling Henry Jacobs
|When it comes to official doctrine, the church has
changed nothing by tweaking the intro to the Book of Mormon. I can give them
that. The BoM intro was written by McKonkie who didn't know about mormon doctrine, right? ;-)
The following doctrine, however, has never been altered, retracted or changed as far as I know.
We also bear testimony that the "Indians" (so called) of North and South America are a remnant of the tribes of Israel; as is now made manifest by the discovery and revelation of their ancient oracles and records.
OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS
CHRIST, OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS. April 6, 1845
|The Book of Mormon intro is officially approved by the Corporation of the CJCLDS . . .
|Nov 08 21:29
|Being the Mormon Church's "principal" scripture, Mormons can bet their believin' booty that nothing gets into the preface page of Mormonism's premier propaganda pulp without doctrinal sanction from the President of the LDS Church.
|Exactly! The notion that the preface of the "Keystone" book of scripture. . .
|Nov 08 21:47
|can be published year after year and not constitute
the official, revealed doctrine of the Church is pure legalistic nonsense.
When apologetics stoop to the level of "yeah, but Simon didn't say it was doctrine" the whole notion of having living prophets to speak for god becomes little more than a silly Simon-Says game of "gotcha".
Anybody foolish enough to believe in a religion that boasts of being uniquely equipped with genuine inspired prophets, while legalistically absolving the same prophets from any responsibility for correcting errors that literally take place under the prophets' very noses all day, every day, for decades and decades...deserves that religion.
|I Predicted This… (as I'm sure most of us have)
|Nov 08 11:02
|Laying in bed a year ago, talking with my wife
regarding my loss of belief, I told her that the day would come when the
church would have to back down from their claim that the Book of Mormon was
a literal history of Native Americans. When, in the following General
Conference  nothing was announced, My Uber-Mega-TBM-Nazi-Wife (whom I love
with every fiber of my being) said…”See! They didn’t retract anything from
Book of Mormon claims”.
Hell! I didn’t say it would happen literally over night…I said that the church's claims of a historical Book of Mormon were unsustainable…and would have to be modified to accommodate reality or be further marginalized as a work of fiction.
Seems like the inoculation of the sheep is starting on a more subtle basis…and I’m glad that people like Simon and the Tribune are pointing this out.
Good on yeah Mate!
But doesn’t this move by the church merely open them up to more questions than it resolves? By admitting that Lehi’s so called descendants weren’t alone in the America’s? How do they now reconcile this change with Moroni’s statement that: … there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fullness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants… JS His.vs 34
I mean come on! How do they walk away from this canonized scripture supposedly given directly from God’s messenger?
Oh I am so glad I no longer have to jump through these Mormon mental hoops…
|Let's not forget the purpose of the Book Of Mormon.
|Nov 08 15:26
|To bring the remnants of the seed back to the gospel.
You know, the whole speaking from the dust routine?
How can that happen if the remnant of the seed can't be found? Doesn't that make the whole thing pointless?
LA Times: The Book of Mormon and DNA: Book of Mormon and DNA