Book of Mormon – Trying to cover up false claims:
When two men claiming to be prophets of the same “one and only true” church of God proclaim contradictory teachings, who are we to believe? If we are to follow what the modern prophet says, what does that mean if a future prophet can declare a statement that directly contradicts what a past prophet has affirmed? Why are we to believe what the current prophet teaches when what he teaches can be so easily dismissed by future “prophets”?
- Kimball, “Of Royal Blood”, Ensign, July 1971, Special Lamanite Section
- Nelson, “2016 Seminar for New Mission Presidents”, June 23, 2016
Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe as a matter of history that, centuries ago, in about A.D. 385, somewhere in the Americas there was an enormous battle between the last great army of a people known as the Nephites and the armies of a rival people known as the Lamanites. Both peoples are believed to have descended from a group of Israelites, led by a man named Lehi, who migrated to the Americas in about 600 B.C. The conflict ended with the destruction of the Nephite army and the eventual disappearance of all surviving Nephites. The details are given in the Book of Mormon, considered by Latter-day Saints to be a volume of sacred scripture.
What then became of the victorious Lamanites is a question that many Latter-day Saints have believed settled for most of the history of their religion, founded in 1830 by Joseph Smith Jr. (Smith said that he translated the Book of Mormon from ancient records buried for centuries in upstate New York and entrusted to his care by an angel of God.) The Lamanites, church members have long believed, are the direct ancestors of the indigenous peoples found in North, South and Central America by European explorers in the 15th and 16th centuries.
It’s a matter of some controversy, then, that LDS officials have now changed the text of the Introduction to the Book of Mormon, softening the assertion made when the Introduction was first included, in 1981, that the Lamanites “are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.” The new text says only that the Lamanites “are among the ancestors of the American Indians.”
If you try and rationalize this away with “the introduction to the book isn’t doctrinal, and thus subject to change.” or what have you, the point is that the entire church, including Joseph Smith and his successors, believed that native Americans were laminates and shared lineage with Jews. The mormon church has only backed off this belief today when DNA based methods of tracking human migration (aka actual factual SCIENCE) have been developed. The most damning part for me is the mission calls to preach to the lamanites in the D&C. That is the voice of Mormon Jesus as spoken through his prophet talking about native Americans in the old West as if they were lamanites.
Ding. Ding. Ding. Red flags people. Red flags.
But Prophets can never speak any wrong thing, so claims the Fourth President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints:
“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.
- Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.
So if that’s true, why do we have two “Prophets” saying different things? Are the Lamanites in the Book of Mormon Native Americans as Joseph Smith clearly claimed, or did he lie? Science can’t lie.
To answer those who ask: “why is this significant?”: The research shows that 99% of the American Indians can trace ancestry back to Asia (Mongolia, Siberia) and the other 1% can trace it back to Europe (mostly Spain). Now where are the American Indians that are “among” any ancestry from Jerusalem? They don’t exist! To those who say the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon should be based on confirmation through the spirit: shouldn’t the science back up that spiritual confirmation? There is no science to back up the Book of Mormon and there is certainly NO evidence to confirm the Book of Abraham! To go along with something because of spirituality is in no way wrong, but science and spirituality should not conflict. Find real truth.
To those who say the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon can only come from the source, where is the source? God? How does he communicate? making you feel good or bad about something? By your definition of truth and how to obtain it I believe reading Lord of the Rings is “good and true” because I feel good when I read it. I also feel the police are “bad” since my heart skips a beat when their lights flash behind me when I’m driving and I can’t remember whether I was going the speed limit or just a few over the speed limit, and I have a negative emotional reaction. Prescribing an “eternal truth” to your emotional reaction is the pinnacle of pride and selfishness. Using FACTS, LOGIC, REASONING, SCIENCE, etc.to guide your decisions and philosophies is what we should all be doing.