Mormons; the Problem of Iron, Alcohol & the Wheel

[Watchmen]

Good. I'd prefer to keep things simple.

This is not accurate.

The title page of the Book of Mormon was written by Moroni and translated by Joseph Smith and was found on the last plate of the gold plates. It is considered revelation.

You meant to say that the Introduction to the Book of Mormon (which was not considered revelation) changed "principal" to "among".

The Introduction was written in 1981 by Elder Bruce R. McConkie.

Could you please share what the definition of the word "principal" is?

As I said before, your argument is based on a false definition of that word. The word "principal" never meant "only" or "majority".

Neither the Church nor the Book of Mormon ever made the claim that all Native Americans descended from the Lamanites.

Changing that sentence of the Introduction does not change what was recorded in the Book of Mormon or the Church's stance on the Book of Mormon.

You cannot keep running with this old worn-out argument and stay honest. You just can't.

You're right. It was the Intro not the title page. My mistake.

Doesn't change the fact that the Church made one representation then had to backtrack based on evidence contrary to the Church's beliefs and teachings.

 

[Watchmen]

Why are errors in the 1769 KJV of the Bible that Joseph used also in the Book of Mormon, word for word?

 

[Watchmen]

Why are the KJV translators' added words in Bible verses also in the Book of Mormon?

 

[Watchmen]

Why are there Book of Mormon verses taken from the Bible that match the KJV Joseph used, but don't match the inspired translation of the Bible Joseph was later working on?

 

[Watchmen]

Why are there so many animals mentioned in the BoM that simply did not exist in America pre-Columbus?

 

[Watchmen]

Why is there no archaeological evidence of th societies referenced in the BoM?

 

[Watchmen]

Why are names and places in the BoM so strikingly similar to the names of places where Joseph grew up and lived?

 

[Watchmen]

Why is the BoM so strikingly similar to the 1825 Book "View of the Hebrews," a book written by a pastor in Vermont? Guess who was a member of the congregation----Oliver Cowdry.

 

[Watchmen]

Why are portions of the BoM so strikingly similar to children's text books written in KJV style English - books Joseph likely had access to?

 

[Watchmen]

Why did the Church hide the true means of translation of the gold plates (stone in hat)?

 

[Prestor John]

s

Doesn't change the fact that the Church made one representation then had to backtrack based on evidence contrary to the Church's beliefs and teachings.

Considering that the word "principal" does not mean what you think it means, how did the Church "backtrack" on anything?

The Church literally did not change their position in regards to the Lamanites and the Native Americans.

Those claims are not mutually exclusive.

The Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the Native Americans. The Lamanites are also among the ancestors of the Native Americans.

Also, considering that the Introduction of the Book of Mormon was never considered revelation, how does changing it affect the Church in any way?

Doesn't the Church change its manuals and lessons every year? Do those changes mean that the Church is "backtracking"?

The fact that the word "principal" does not mean what you think it means dismantles your argument.

 

[Watchmen]

s
Considering that the word "principal" does not mean what you think it means, how did the Church "backtrack" on anything?

The Church literally did not change their position in regards to the Lamanites and the Native Americans.

Those claims are not mutually exclusive.

The Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the Native Americans. The Lamanites are also among the ancestors of the Native Americans.

Also, considering that the Introduction of the Book of Mormon was never considered revelation, how does changing it affect the Church in any way?

Doesn't the Church change its manuals and lessons every year? Do those changes mean that the Church is "backtracking"?

The fact that the word "principal" does not mean what you think it means dismantles your argument.

Now you're just being intellectually dishonest, but I'll bite. How are "principal ancestors" and "among the ancestors" the same? If it was the same, why did the Church make a change at all? Do you truly not recognize the bias you're demonstrating?

 

[Prestor John]

Now you're just being intellectually dishonest, but I'll bite. How are "principal ancestors" and "among the ancestors" the same? If it was the same, why did the Church make a change at all? Do you truly not recognize the bias you're demonstrating?

I never said that they were the same. All I said was that they were not mutually exclusive, meaning that both can be true.

I don't know the exact reason, but if I had to guess I'd say that the Church made the change because they were getting a lot of flak from people who did not understand the definition of the word "principal".

Those confused people, members and non-members, erroneously thought that the Introduction to the Book of Mormon was stating that all Native Americans descended from Lamanites.

Since the Church never made that claim and did not want it to appear as if they had, they made the change.

The Church obviously did not make the change due to scientific discoveries. For one, the scientific community always mocked the idea of Israelites sailing to the Americas. Second, the Siberian Land Bridge theory had been postulated since the 1930's and generally accepted since the 1950s.

The Introduction was written in 1981 despite these scientific "hurdles".

The Lamanites being the "principal" (or "most important") ancestors of the Native Americans is still believed to be true. They are also believed to be "among" the ancestors of the Native Americans as well.

Neither statement negates the other. Both can be true. Both are believed to be true.

 

[Watchmen]

"Principal

I never said that they were the same. All I said was that they were not mutually exclusive, meaning that both can be true.

I don't know the exact reason, but if I had to guess I'd say that the Church made the change because they were getting a lot of flak from people who did not understand the definition of the word "principal".

Those confused people, members and non-members, erroneously thought that the Introduction to the Book of Mormon was stating that all Native Americans descended from Lamanites.

Since the Church never made that claim and did not want it to appear as if they had, they made the change.

The Church obviously did not make the change due to scientific discoveries. For one, the scientific community always mocked the idea of Israelites sailing to the Americas. Second, the Siberian Land Bridge theory had been postulated since the 1930's and generally accepted since the 1950s.

The Introduction was written in 1981 despite these scientific "hurdles".

The Lamanites being the "principal" (or "most important") ancestors of the Native Americans is still believed to be true. They are also believed to be "among" the ancestors of the Native Americans as well.

Neither statement negates the other. Both can be true. Both are believed to be true.

"Principal" means "primary." Get over it.

 

[Prestor John]

I didn't see that you had asked other questions. One question per post...

I will get to them afterward.

"Principal" means "primary." Get over it.

I will now share a few sources demonstrating how this is inaccurate.

Bear in mind that Elder Bruce R. McConkie used the word "principal" as an adjective to describe the type or quality of ancestors the Lamanites were to the Native Americans. I will only share the relevant definitions.

Principal means:

"first or highest in rank, importance, value, etc.; chief; foremost."
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/principal?s=t

"most important, consequential, or influential."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/principal

"First in order of importance; main"
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/principal

If you meant to say that "principal" and "primary" were synonyms of one another, then you would be correct, but what does "primary" mean?

"first or highest in rank or importance; chief; principal:"
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/primary?s=t

"of first rank, importance, or value"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/primary

"Of chief importance; principal"
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/primary

Neither "principal" nor "primary" mean "only", "sole" or "majority".

Neither the Church nor the Book of Mormon claimed that all Native Americans descend from the Lamanites.

You got the definitions of both "principal" and "primary" wrong, therefore causing you to come to a faulty conclusion.

Get over it.

 

[Watchmen]

I didn't see that you had asked other questions. One question per post...

I will get to them afterward.

I will now share a few sources demonstrating how this is inaccurate.

Bear in mind that Elder Bruce R. McConkie used the word "principal" as an adjective to describe the type or quality of ancestors the Lamanites were to the Native Americans. I will only share the relevant definitions.

Principal means:

"first or highest in rank, importance, value, etc.; chief; foremost."
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/principal?s=t

"most important, consequential, or influential."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/principal

"First in order of importance; main"
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/principal

If you meant to say that "principal" and "primary" were synonyms of one another, then you would be correct, but what does "primary" mean?

"first or highest in rank or importance; chief; principal:"
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/primary?s=t

"of first rank, importance, or value"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/primary

"Of chief importance; principal"
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/primary

Neither "principal" nor "primary" mean "only", "sole" or "majority".

Neither the Church nor the Book of Mormon claimed that all Native Americans descend from the Lamanites.

You got the definitions of both "principal" and "primary" wrong, therefore causing you to come to a faulty conclusion.

Get over it.

I never claimed "principal" meant "all." In your own definition, you'll see that "principal" includes "chief" and "foremost." If you also bothered to look at the synonyms you'll see "prime" and "main." So, nice try, but you're wrong. Get over it.

 

[Watchmen]

AND I see you haven't bothered to answer any of my other questions in this thread. I left several for you. Shall we separate them out and have a one on one debate?

 

[Prestor John]

AND I see you haven't bothered to answer any of my other questions in this thread. I left several for you. Shall we separate them out and have a one on one debate?

As I said in my previous post,

"I didn't see that you had asked other questions. One question per post...

I will get to them afterward."

I'll get to them when I get to them. Possibly tomorrow.

I never claimed "principal" meant "all."

Is not your argument that the Church claimed that all the Native Americans descend from the Lamanites?

Aren't you claiming that the Church changed the word "principal" because Native American DNA studies showed that they were not Hebrews?

Your argument only makes sense if you are claiming that the Church changed their stance of all Native Americans being descendants of Lamanites because of new DNA studies and you are using the fact that the word "principal" was changed as evidence of your claim.

You have to be advocating that the Church claimed that all Native Americans descended from Lamanites because you consider the DNA studies to be so damning. It would not be damning if the Church never made that claim. (They never did)

Am I confused about what you are claiming?

In your own definition, you'll see that "principal" includes "chief" and "foremost." If you also bothered to look at the synonyms you'll see "prime" and "main." So, nice try, but you're wrong. Get over it.

I don't get how you think that I'm wrong when you agree with me and said the exact same thing that I have been claiming.

Principal means "chief" and "foremost", which means that there are other ancestors. Just because the Lamanites are the "chief" ancestors, that does not mean that there cannot be other ancestors or that they are the "majority" of the ancestors. The words "chief" and "foremost" are speaking of quality, not quantity.

That was the idea that Elder Bruce R. McConkie wanted to get across. The Lamanites were the most important ancestors of the Native Americans, not the only ones or the "majority" of them.

Through that lineage, the promises that the Lord made to Abraham are being fulfilled. Through Abraham's seed all the nations of the world will be blessed. The covenanted blessings that the Lord made with Abraham can now be passed down to the Native Americans that descend from the Lamanites because they descend from Abraham.

The Lamanites are the "chief" or "foremost" ancestors of the Native Americans. The promises that pass down through their blood makes them the "prime" and "main" ancestors of the Native Americans.

It does not mean that they are the "only" ancestors of the Native Americans. It does not mean that all Native Americans descend from them.

 

[Watchmen]

As I said in my previous post,

"I didn't see that you had asked other questions. One question per post...

I will get to them afterward."

I'll get to them when I get to them. Possibly tomorrow.

Is not your argument that the Church claimed that all the Native Americans descend from the Lamanites?

Aren't you claiming that the Church changed the word "principal" because Native American DNA studies showed that they were not Hebrews?

Your argument only makes sense if you are claiming that the Church changed their stance of all Native Americans being descendants of Lamanites because of new DNA studies and you are using the fact that the word "principal" was changed as evidence of your claim.

You have to be advocating that the Church claimed that all Native Americans descended from Lamanites because you consider the DNA studies to be so damning. It would not be damning if the Church never made that claim. (They never did)

Am I confused about what you are claiming?

I don't get how you think that I'm wrong when you agree with me and said the exact same thing that I have been claiming.

Principal means "chief" and "foremost", which means that there are other ancestors. Just because the Lamanites are the "chief" ancestors, that does not mean that there cannot be other ancestors or that they are the "majority" of the ancestors. The words "chief" and "foremost" are speaking of quality, not quantity.

That was the idea that Elder Bruce R. McConkie wanted to get across. The Lamanites were the most important ancestors of the Native Americans, not the only ones or the "majority" of them.

Through that lineage, the promises that the Lord made to Abraham are being fulfilled. Through Abraham's seed all the nations of the world will be blessed. The covenanted blessings that the Lord made with Abraham can now be passed down to the Native Americans that descend from the Lamanites because they descend from Abraham.

The Lamanites are the "chief" or "foremost" ancestors of the Native Americans. The promises that pass down through their blood makes them the "prime" and "main" ancestors of the Native Americans.

It does not mean that they are the "only" ancestors of the Native Americans. It does not mean that all Native Americans descend from them.

Again, it is NOT my position that the Church taught that ALL native Americans came from the Lamanites. Rather, the Church expressly taught that the Lamanite's were the "principal" (primary, foremost, chief) ancestors. When DNA evidence conclusively proved otherwise, the Church pivoted to "among" the ancestors.

You're misreading the term "principal," not me.

 

[Prestor John]

Again, it is NOT my position that the Church taught that ALL native Americans came from the Lamanites. Rather, the Church expressly taught that the Lamanite's were the "principal" (primary, foremost, chief) ancestors. When DNA evidence conclusively proved otherwise, the Church pivoted to "among" the ancestors.

You're misreading the term "principal," not me.

DNA cannot prove which ancestor is more important than the other.

Using the the word "principal" as an adjective is describing that ancestry as "most important" or "chief" or "foremost".

I don't understand how you think any DNA evidence can prove that someone's ancestor was not important.

I also do not get how you do not understand that an ancestor can be "chief" and "foremost" as well as "among".

Where is the issue? One does not negate the other...