Jhmicheal25,
QUOTE |
PRINCIPAL ANCESTORS: Indicates that there are other ancestors as well. Yes it does indicate this but principal according to websters dictionary means primary source. Thus Principal ancestors does imply other ancestors as you stated, but that the Lamonites were the main source or the major decedents to the Native Americans. If there was not difference between the term "among" and "principal" then why change the wording. BY changing the word from primary, to among you are now saying that they were not the main source for Native American ancestry but rather a source that does not dominate the Native American origins. What this does is recognize that Lamonites decedents are much smaller then what was earlier thought to be. |
OK. So, now we know that there is a Primary and Secondary source.
When did this secondary come about? Could it be that for some time the Lamanites were the only ones here, and now, there is a secondary source because maybe, the Native Americans have been mixing with other races in the last decades?
This could explain the change on the introducton, right?
Because maybe at the beginning they were pure Lamanites, and now, they have mixed with other races. . .
Any insights?
QUOTE |
But let's consider the definition as primary for a moment and see what implies around primary if that is what is supposed to mean. It shouldn't be PRIMARY without SECONDARY as verse it shouldn't be SECONDARY without PRIMARY. So if primary is correct than we also should consider that there is also secondary. If LAMANATES are primary then other than Lamanates must be secondary race as well. |
QUOTE |
When did this secondary come about? Could it be that for some time the Lamanites were the only ones here, and now, there is a secondary source because maybe, the Native Americans have been mixing with other races in the last decades? |
Name: Nick
Country:
Comments: Whether you may think it changes the context of the original view is not the point. The point seems to be, that every time we are confronted with opposition, rather than sticking to our guns, it seems much easier to appease the masses.
It's not the first time this has happened and certainly won't be the last.
Political correctness and science rule the day and the churches opinions of things. And science has certainly never been off the mark. So why doubt them?
Is it any wonder why so many GA's find lawyering such a suitable profession and that a secular PR firm is needed to further the cause of "pre packaged truth" if not to appease the masses?
I hear ya loud and clear Nick. I have been saying the same things for YEARS. Unfortunately, when you share it with your typical lds member they are quick to accuse you of apostate or thinking too much about conspiracy theories you know what am I saying? They're blind they just cannot see these huge changes in front of their eyes, its worrisome.
Last Post removed to Mature LDS section entitled Doctrinal Changes - Where Does That Leave Me? because of content not for the Public LDS Board.
Hey guys I was wondering what do you all think of the recent changes of the online version of the BOM?