?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Ex-Mormon Community's Journal -- Day [entries|friends|calendar]
Ex-Mormon Community

[ website | exmormon.org ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ calendar | livejournal calendar ]

Change in the BoM.. They're covering their butts !! [09 Nov 2007|12:50am]
[ mood | chipper ]

Cross posted to my journal:

It looks like the DNA evidence proving the BoM is a bunch of lies was just too much for the church. So they edit one word in the introduction in a pathetic attempt to give themselves some breathing room against the cold, hard facts.

side note: A couple months ago I had a brief and almost polite debate with the author of this article over her ommision of a few key facts that would have changed the basis of a story she wrote on Mitt Romney and church influence over his policies. I'll get into that some other time, but needless to say, you always have to be careful what you read in the SLC news, even the Trib which claims to pride itself on being "independant" of Church in fluence/dictation/editorial control.

From the Salt Lake Trib:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_7403990

Single word change in Book of Mormon speaks volumes
By Peggy Fletcher Stack
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 11/08/2007 09:52:47 AM MST


Posted: 6:31 AM- The LDS Church has changed a single word in its introduction to the Book of Mormon, a change observers say has serious implications for commonly held LDS beliefs about the ancestry of American Indians.
Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe founder Joseph Smith unearthed a set of gold plates from a hill in upperstate New York in 1827 and translated the ancient text into English. The account, known as The Book of Mormon, tells the story of two Israelite civilizations living in the New World. One derived from a single family who fled from Jerusalem in 600 B.C. and eventually splintered into two groups, known as the Nephites and Lamanites.
The book's current introduction, added by the late LDS apostle, Bruce R. McConkie in 1981, includes this statement: "After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians."
The new version, seen first in Doubleday's revised edition, reads, "After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians."
LDS leaders instructed Doubleday to make the change, said senior editor Andrew Corbin, so it "would be in accordance with future editions the church is printing."
The change "takes into account details of Book of Mormon demography which are not known," LDS spokesman Mark Tuttle said Wednesday.
It also steps into the middle of a raging debate about the book's historical claims.
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."
After testing the DNA of more than 12,000 Indians, though, most researchers have concluded that the continent's early inhabitants came from Asia across the Bering Strait.
With this change, the LDS Church is "conceding that mainstream scientific theories about the colonization of the Americas have significant elements of truth in them," said Simon Southerton, a former Mormon and author of Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA and the Mormon Church.
"DNA has revealed very clearly how closely related American Indians are to their Siberian ancestors, " Southerton said in an e-mail from his home in Canberra, Australia. "The Lamanites are invisible, not principal ancestors."
LDS scholars, however, dispute the notion that DNA evidence eliminates the possibility of Lamanites. They call it "oversimplification" of the research.
On the church's official Web site, lds.org, it says, "Nothing in the Book of Mormon precludes migration into the Americas by peoples of Asiatic origin. The scientific issues relating to DNA, however, are numerous and complex."
Mormon researcher John M. Butler and DNA expert further argues that "careful examination and demographic analysis of the Book of Mormon record in terms of population growth and the number of people described implies that other groups were likely present in the promised land when Lehi's family arrived, and these groups may have genetically mixed with the Nephites, Lamanites, and other groups. Events related in the Book of Mormon likely took place in a limited region, leaving plenty of room for other Native American peoples to have existed."
In recent years, many LDS scholars have come to share Butler's belief in what is known as the "limited geography" theory. By this view, the Nephites and Lamanites restricted their activities to portions of Central America, which would explain their absence from the general American Indian genetics.
Kevin Barney, a Mormon lawyer and independent researcher in Chicago, welcomes the introduction's word change.
"I have always felt free to disavow the language of the [Book of Mormon's] introduction, footnotes and dictionary, which are not part of the canonical scripture," said Barney, on the board of FAIR, a Mormon apologist group. "These things can change as the scholarship progresses and our understanding enlarges. This suggests to me that someone on the church's scripture committee is paying attention to the discussion."

12 comments|post comment

BYU and the facts of science [09 Nov 2007|10:47pm]
[ mood | curious ]

Something that has bugged me for a while: I never understood how BYU can be accredited as a university, considering how their core beliefs are contradictory to the very laws of science. It seems to me there is a serious conflict between what the church teaches and the duty of a qualified proffessor to study and inform students of the facts, whether they personaly like the findings or not. How can they offer classes in fields of geology, biology, genetics and history when a serious and honest study in any of those areas completely proves the church is a fraud on every level?

1 comment|post comment

navigation
[ viewing | November 9th, 2007 ]
[ go | previous day|next day ]