The Wentworth Letter

[MikeWaters]

It's not been proven that modern Native Americans have no Israelite blood.

On the other hand, there is absolutely not a shred of evidence that they have any Israelite blood.

In other words, the sum archaeological and genetic evidence do not provide much support for the Book of Mormon as history. The evidence, as it were, for the historicity of the BoM is in the margins.

The church really could use some good news on this front, just to keep in the game.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

It's not been proven that modern Native Americans have no Israelite blood.

On the other hand, there is absolutely not a shred of evidence that they have any Israelite blood.

In other words, the sum archaeological and genetic evidence do not provide much support for the Book of Mormon as history. The evidence, as it were, for the historicity of the BoM is in the margins.

The church really could use some good news on this front, just to keep in the game.

You mean besides the discoveries on the Arabian peninsula?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by BlueK

You mean besides the discoveries on the Arabian peninsula?

Those discoveries, as you put it, are comforting to believers. But they are not convincing to neutral observers.

Chiasmus--comforting to believers, unconvincing to neutral observers.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Those discoveries, as you put it, are comforting to believers. But they are not convincing to neutral observers.

Chiasmus--comforting to believers, unconvincing to neutral observers.

you could say that about anything that ever could be found. You can't use history to back up any religious beliefs or miracles from the Bible either. There are plenty of skeptics, atheists and agnostics willing to back me up on that statement. It will always come back to faith. Maybe you can show some of the places mentioned in the Bible existed, but not much more than that. And you can't even show that for many or most of them. Heck, there is no mention of Moses anywhere in Egypt. Seems a little odd you can't prove the central character in all of Jewish history even existed, much less was actually ever in the vicinity of the location where the central event for that major ancient religion and culture was established (Sinai and the giving of the Law). So whatever does come out in Arabia or on this continent, how would you really ever be able to prove anything about the BofM anyway? You can't even prove the Bible by the standard the skeptics want.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BlueK

you could say that about anything that ever could be found. You can't use history to back up any religious beliefs or miracles from the Bible either. There are plenty of skeptics, atheists and agnostics willing to back me up on that statement. It will always come back to faith. Maybe you can show some of the places mentioned in the Bible existed, but not much more than that. And you can't even show that for many or most of them. Heck, there is no mention of Moses anywhere in Egypt. Seems a little odd you can't prove the central character in all of Jewish history even existed, much less was actually ever in the vicinity of the location where the central event for that major ancient religion and culture was established (Sinai and the giving of the Law). So whatever does come out in Arabia or on this continent, how would you really ever be able to prove anything about the BofM anyway? You can't even prove the Bible by the standard the skeptics want.

Bringing this up to fundamentalist Christians drives them absolutely crazy.

[MikeWaters]

BoM is much more contemporary than Moses. Is there a controversy over whether David existed or Isaiah existed?

Is there a debate over whether the OT origins are at least 2000 years?

The BoM predicts large civilizations, but the civilizations to date do not demonstrate Christian worship.

Now maybe there will be discoveries in the Amazon basin that will change everything...

[Taq Man]

Originally Posted by Tex

This Sunday's Priesthood/RS lesson in our ward is #38, the Wentworth Letter. The letter is reprinted in full in the manual, with the following omission:



Discuss.

This reminds me of Animal Farm when the pigs go to the barn in the middle of the night to add to the original commandments. Gotta keep the "Truth" current.

Orson Wells would recognize this for what it is.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Tex

Well, that's not entirely true. While the Book of Mormon doesn't explicitly say "Native Americans are Lamanites," it leaves the clear impression that the book is intended to come forth and convert the descendants of that civilization to the religion of their ancestors. Now we can dicker over who that is exactly intended to be (in modern terms), but it's a fair assumption made by many over the years, including JS, that it includes the Native Americans.

Personally, I'm confused by the deletion from the manual. None of that is problematic in my view, with the possible exception of the last sentence (which ties the book to today's Indians). The rest ... Jaredites, descendants of Joseph ... are all claims made in the Book of Mormon. So what's the big deal?

Perhaps it was edited out not so much for doctrinal purposes, but to focus the lesson on the important things.

I might have deleted it myself, were I the editor, just because a synopsis of the Book of Mormon doesn't really fit in with the theme of the manual (id est, the teachings of Joseph Smith and the early history of the church).

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Until recently the introduction of the BoM made that claim.

But that was a McConkie addition in the early eighties, not in the original IIRC.