Mormons Rock

November 9, 2007

Call me crazy……..

Filed under: life — by steffielynn @ 5:23 am
Tags: , , , , , ,

So we tend to disagree A LOT on my blog, and it is usually just differences in opinion. 

So I want to take us somewhere else for a while, somewhere new, something a bit different.

I’ll explain……While I was at Chucky cheese tonight I was asked a very interesting question.  I had invited my adorable sister missionaries and they were worried about an investigator.  They said they had no clue as to how to handle this. 

So the question they posed was, is marijuana addictive and how do you over come this problem. 

Now this is just MY opinion, but I don’t think marijuana is addictive, although I think it may depend on the person.  (anything can become addictive) 

And if I were to be in a lot of pain or if I had cancer or something I would most certainly hope that it was an option.  I personally would rather put a natural substance in my body then a PROVEN addictive man made pill.  

So they asked me “then why is it illegal and is that the ONLY reason mormons don’t use it?  “Law of the land” and such. 

I really don’t know, does anyone else know?  I would say it is because of the law of the land.  But again that is just my opinion.  no facts here.   And I really don’t know why it’s illegal , but I know there are Mormons that take oxycontin which IS legal and also very bad and VERY addictive. 

Does my opinion shock anyone?  I’m interested in everyones opinions, so let me know what you think and why!

(I really just want personal opinions, this is not necessarily a LDS only issue)

***** I want all who read this to understand that the things expressed here are personal opinion!

Also I want it to be clear that I am personally in favor of marijauna for medical reasons ONLY, not for recreation.  I realize it is a drug, and should only be prescribed for those who need it, by a doctor!

Advertisements

183 Comments »

  1. In this case it doesn’t matter if it is legal or not. The LDS church would be against it because it would be considered a form of tobacco which is against the WoW.

    My personal opinion is that it should be legal and controlled via prescription, just like any other drug.

    It is addictive just like chocolate or diet coke is addictive. It is something that makes you feel better so you want it. There are no physical withdrawal symptoms, but that doesn’t mean you don’t crave it just the same.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 9, 2007 @ 5:48 am |Reply

  2. Do you really think the church thinks it is a form of tobacco? Tobacco is really nasty bad stuff with (man made) chemicals in it and is TOTALLY different. Marijuana is a straight natural plant, an herb.

    Comment by steffielynn — November 9, 2007 @ 5:55 am |Reply

  3. Isn’t it the THC in it that has the medicinal value? It really isn’t a tobacco but I think BR is right that the church would have an issue with the smoking part, if it was prescribed and in a non-smoking form I don’t see what the problem would be. I am pretty sure there are LDS taking it in non-smoking forms to help them through Chemo. I remember when my Mom was dying of cancer 10+ years ago I suggested it and got some looks like I was crazy.

    On a totally side note, I think it is ridiculous that it is illegal to begin with. Alcohol is legal much more damaging much more addictive. You can’t toke yourself to death but you can certainly drink yourself to death. If it was legal I would most likely prefer a toke now and again over a drink. Except for the fact if I did smoke pot with the munchies effect I would be 300lbs.

    That brings another question, why is some considered temple worthy if they obviously do not follow the word wisdom by ways other than the Coffee, Tea, Alcohol, drugs? Since leaving the Church I do enjoy my Beer, wine or a cocktail, however I take way better care of my body now than I did then, I was a sweet freak ice cream, candy everyday. Isn’t the WoW a health code to be followed, why does over indulging and being obese seem to be okay?

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 9, 2007 @ 6:37 am |Reply

  4. People that are overweight are breaking the WoW. The letter of the law dictates that they should not be allowed a temple recommend. Then there is the spirit of the law.

    Of course I was denied a temple recommend once for drinking decaffeinated coffee. Where was the spirit of the law then?

    Also, tea has less caffeine than diet coke and is one of the most healthy natural drinks you can find. Why is this banned?

    Then there is the fact that JS drank wine and beer on a regular basis. In fact he had wine in Liberty Jail before he was killed.

    What is the straight story on the WoW?

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 9, 2007 @ 7:24 am |Reply

  5. Steffie,

    If hot drink can be interpreted to mean coffee and tea, and not hot chocolate, hot cider or any other hot drink, then marijuana can easily be interpreted as tobacco.

    Remember, tea is much more healthy than hot chocolate or cider, so this is not a health issue.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 9, 2007 @ 7:30 am |Reply

  6. Reg. Tea really isn’t healthy, it has tanic acid (the stuff they use to die leather)

    But herbal teas are good and many LDS drink it.

    I disagree with you with the pot is the same as tobacco, or I guess what you are saying is that the church would view it as such, but I disagree. And you can take it in different form ( it can be eaten). Also I found this article in LDS living http://www.ldslivingonline.com/article.php?articleId=30221

    So what’s up with that? why is it in LDS living? weird huh? What do you think?

    Wasn’t the WofW Not a command for a long time? After joseph’s death, like 20 years after.

    I used to drink alcohol, I lost 25 lbs when I stopped. So I agree witht the no alcohol part. And I am thankful for it! But I agree with the over indulging thing, I do have a bit of a sweet tooth now, but that may be because I like to make cookies (something I didn’t do before)

    Some people are heavier for a reason (medical) but some people are heavy because they are out of control, which IS breaking the WoW. But I’m not the bishop or the stake pres. who gives them out, it’s on them, but I think they should be much more concerned then they seem to be.

    Comment by steffielynn — November 9, 2007 @ 12:28 pm |Reply

  7. So, I think it’s because it alters who you are while your on it. I think it affects your decision-making too.

    Comment by Sandy — November 9, 2007 @ 1:22 pm |Reply

  8. Hello Sandy!!!! 🙂

    Yes marijuana does do those things, your right. But do you think if it was legal, it would be ok for sick LDS to take it? There are much worse drugs out there that are prescribed, and they are so horribly addictive. I have seen the affects of pain killers and how it can grab a hold of normal people and tear them apart.

    The missioinaries, are trying to help a family understand that it is not ok to take, but they do it to destress, not for medical reasons. So if they want to join the church they will have to quit.

    The father pointed out to the girls D&C 89:10

    “10 And again, verily I say unto you, all wholesome herbs God hath ordained for the constitution, nature, and use of man—
    11 Every herb in the season thereof, and every fruit in the season thereof; all these to be used with prudence and thanksgiving.”

    Comment by steffielynn — November 9, 2007 @ 1:34 pm |Reply

  9. There seems to be confusion about Tanic Acid (which is found in Oak Leaves and used for tanning) and tannins which is found in tea and coffee. They are not the same thing, and Tea tannins will not tan leather.

    If someone/thing states that tea and coffee contain Tanic Acid, dismiss that source as it is false.

    The formula for Tannic Acid (Acidum Tannicum) is:

    C14 H10 O9

    The formula for Tea Tannins is:

    C20 H20 O9

    Not the same thing.

    (NOTE: Tea Tannins are actually antibacterial)

    Let me list other WoW accepted foods that contain tannins (some that contain more than tea and coffee):

    Colas
    Walnuts
    Grapes
    Cocoa (yes hot chocolate is not only hot, but contains the same tannins as tea and coffee, plus all the sugar and preservatives)

    Green tea, White tea, and Black tea are loaded with antioxidant properties, none of which are found in Colas. Tea is one of the healthiest natural drinks known.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 9, 2007 @ 3:19 pm |Reply

  10. I have always thought LDS and the WoW were a bit out of sync, even when I was faithfully practicing. I use to jovially say in the morning as I was cracking open my Diet Coke, hey I am a good Mormon I drink my caffeine cold. When I was in England on my mission they were more strict it seemed and Cola’s were on the banned list in people minds. Maybe it was because to get em to give up their tea you had to concede something else to make it feel fairer. I do know that in different parts of the world the banned items seem to shift some. My son in Russia is allowed to drink herbal tea, something of a gray area other places.

    There have even been talks given as to how the Members of the Church use the WoW as to much a measuring stick. That I would guess is because it is easy to monitor and measure and when it comes to temple recommend standards probably the easiest one to define and identify besides Fornication, Adultery or tithing. The other questions are much more subjective, even the morality one can be rationalized easier than let’s say “oooops I drank a beer”

    It seems now that it is more of a test of obedience than anything else; members are really not allowed the luxury of living the spirit or even the letter of the law when it comes to WoW. I understand the absolute ban on Alcohol, even though one could argue the one glass of wine a day is good for you or that a mild a *barley drink is in fact beer, but as Sandy said it alters your state of mind and breaks down your inhibitions so I think there is a fear that someone might make a bad moral decision if they drink even beer or wine. The coffee and tea thing just doesn’t make that much sense other than like I said the test of obedience.

    What year did it actually become a commandment? in the 40’s or 50’s?

    *Nevertheless, wheat for man, and corn for the ox, and oats for the horse, and rye for the fowls and for swine, and for all beasts of the field, and barley for all useful animals, and for mild drinks, as also other grain.

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 9, 2007 @ 4:11 pm |Reply

  11. Whether marijuana is addictive or not totally depends on the level of THC it has. In the sixties this level was relatively low and not considered addictive. Today the marijuana that is smoked has a much higher THC level. I think I remember that it used to be around 2-3% but now it’s usually around 30% and can be addictive.

    I agree that people should be allowed to use it for medical purposes. If we can take pure morphine (in some cases), then why not marijuana? Of course I also think it would not have been a sin for Joseph Smith to drink the alcohol offered to him when his leg was operated on, back then that was medicine.

    The only problem is it is difficult to enforce. In California you have people that legally smoke marijuana, but for the most obscene reasons. There have been many news shows where a reporter with no real medical condition is able to obtain a prescription from unscrupulous doctors. So in California at least, it’s turned into a free for all. Although it is recognized that a few people that are really benefiting from the law.

    Most of the arguments against legalizing marijuana focus on the very real affects that legalizing alcohol has had on society. The number of deaths it causes each year and other problems. The argument goes that introducing another legalized drug will only add to the problem we already have. I think marijuana is better than alcohol. However since alcohol is so socially accepted at this point it would be very difficult to switch it out and legalize marijuana. Most of my friends that have smoked marijuana tell me they get a buzz just as if they were drinking alcohol.

    Comment by Jay — November 9, 2007 @ 5:10 pm |Reply

  12. It is actually a better buzz, you don’t see many angry pot smokers, but there are sure a lot of angry drunks. 🙂

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 9, 2007 @ 5:13 pm |Reply

  13. Alcohol can make you black out and you can do really crazy bad things if you drink too much, things you would never do sober. Marijuana does not make you black out or make you act crazy, it basically mellows you out. There are cases though of people who are allergic to it and it makes them paranoid or sick.

    I read something interesting about WHY it is illegal, and notice the reference to mormons,

    “In California, the law was promoted by the pharmaceutical industry that saw marijuana as competition. It received little notice. In Utah, the law was the result of a Mormon religious prohibition. In the other states, there were two major explanations. The first was racial prejudice against the Mexican immigrants who used it. The second was the fear that heroin addicition would lead to the use of marijuana — exactly the opposite of the modern marijuana gateway myth.”

    Here is the link so you can read the rest

    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_is_marijuana_illegal

    Comment by steffielynn — November 9, 2007 @ 5:32 pm |Reply

  14. Steffie,

    Is your first paragraph a confession? 🙂

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 9, 2007 @ 6:59 pm |Reply

  15. Well I’m a word of wisdom following anti mormon ! lol

    I’m not convinced its from God though. I do prefer to be free from alcohol ( less tired from its drowsy effects) .

    I was a big Coffee drinker and prefer without that too , although the effect is quite the opposite , I feel my tiredness now .

    I never got the spiritual blessings fom it all though , but I’m happy to keep it as it helps with my sport and fitness ..

    I agree though that many church members are far too overweight and it seems that keeping wow the way they interpret it is in vain . No CK for them if they are not careful 🙂 It will be terrestrial with me and that would hurt them ! lol

    Comment by elder joseph — November 9, 2007 @ 7:49 pm |Reply

  16. Well at least EJ gets to go terrestrial I am one of those sons of perdition outer darkness types

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 9, 2007 @ 7:51 pm |Reply

  17. Bishop Rick,

    Little innocent me????? Of course not. 🙂

    Seriously though we all know I am a convert, so I do have some experience…. Thank goodness for the word of wisdom! I’m much healthier! (and happier)

    Comment by steffielynn — November 9, 2007 @ 8:09 pm |Reply

  18. EJ you said

    “I never got the spiritual blessings from it all though , but I’m happy to keep it as it HELPS WITH MY SPORTS AND FITNESS”

    How can you say that being healthy is NOT a blessing????

    Comment by steffielynn — November 9, 2007 @ 9:36 pm |Reply

  19. steffie

    The spiritual blessing is what I was promised , some kind of connection with God ? The health is a physical blessing …

    I used to think that Mormons somehow had connected directly to God from what the missionaries were telling me and what I was hearing in church . But as time has gone on I realise that no one has actually seen or heard anything really and that its all just emotionally induced perhaps ?

    The monthly fast and testimony meetings where people repeat the Mantra I know the church is true , I know that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God etc is a bit much for me …

    I’ve read the bofM prayed and i’m prrof that it doesn’t work .It seems to be something else others are mistaking for an answer . Most converts have never read the book anyway ! missionaries just Love and attention Bomb them and prey on their emotions and then pressure for a baptism .. then when they are gone they hope the ward members will continue the focussed friendshipping ….

    Its all a bit plasticky to me lol

    I think because i have a good family a good upbringing , a stable mormon type life anyway , that I cant identify anything big or too different amongst mormons and hence no conversion moment ..

    ie The church has little or nothing to offer me really:(

    Comment by elder joseph — November 9, 2007 @ 11:05 pm |Reply

  20. My understanding is that marijuana is not addictive. As soon as I post this comment, due to the links, it will go to moderation, but I’m posting it anyway. Check these articles out:

    Exposing Pot Myths
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/armentano-p3.html

    Another Marijuana Myth Goes Up In Smoke
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/armentano-p/armentano-p11.htm

    Unlocking a Cure for Cancer – With Pot
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/armentano-p1.html

    Research Leaves No Cloud in Medical Pot Debate
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/armentano-p/armentano-p16.htm

    Cannabis and the Brain: A User’s Guide
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/armentano-p/armentano-p10.htm

    I especially liked the last article. If marijuana becomes legal, the Church can’t prohibit anyone from smoking it, as there is no prohibition in the Word of Wisdom concerning it. Tobacco ain’t marijuana. And there is no prohibition against smoking either, only using tobacco. (I, myself, have smoked lobelia using a pipe. And no, the Spirit never left me while I did.) I suspect the main reason why there is so much hate of marijuana by the establishment is that it makes people nicer, less materialistic, more spiritual, more creative (musicians love it) and generally anti-capitalistic and anti-corporate. Our corporate, capitalistic masters would not long remain in control with a population of pot smokers who care little for the materialistic comforts. And so pot is villified and remains illegal.

    Note: If you want more articles on pot, go to LewRockwell.com and do a search on that site for “marijuana.”

    Comment by LDS Anarchist — November 10, 2007 @ 4:04 am |Reply

  21. Whether it is addictive or not is still controversial (especially among pot users), but because the THC is so much higher today some users are showing signs of addiction.

    Comment by Jay — November 10, 2007 @ 4:27 am |Reply

  22. Jay said in #11, “Whether marijuana is addictive or not totally depends on the level of THC it has. In the sixties this level was relatively low and not considered addictive. Today the marijuana that is smoked has a much higher THC level. I think I remember that it used to be around 2-3% but now it’s usually around 30% and can be addictive.”

    and in #21,

    “Whether it is addictive or not is still controversial (especially among pot users), but because the THC is so much higher today some users are showing signs of addiction.”

    You got your figures wrong, Jay. Although the THC level has increased since the 60’s, it’s not by as much as you stated. The Exposing Pot Myths article I linked was written by Paul Armentano in October of 2004 and he said,

    “First, the potency issue. According to the WhiteHousedrugpolicy.gov website (last updated on October 16, 2004), pot’s average potency today stands at approximately 5 percent THC. (THC is short for delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, the primary psychoactive ingredient in marijuana.) Indeed, this figure is an increase over past years – pot’s THC content averaged 4 percent in the 1990s and just under 3 percent for the 1980s – but it’s hardly an alarming one. Marijuana poses no risk of fatal overdose, regardless of THC content, and studies indicate that recreational pot smokers readily distinguish between high and low potency weed and moderate their use accordingly – just as an alcohol consumer would drink fewer ounces of (high potency) bourbon than they would ounces of (low potency) beer.”

    When I checked out

    http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/drugfact/marijuana/index.html

    I came across this paragraph:

    “Most of the marijuana available in the domestic drug markets is lower potency commercial-grade marijuana—usually derived from outdoor cannabis grow sites in Mexico and the United States. However, an increasing percentage of the available marijuana is high potency marijuana derived from indoor, closely controlled cannabis cultivation in Canada and the United States. The rising prevalence of high potency marijuana is evidenced by a significant (52.4%) increase in average potency of tested marijuana samples, from 5.34% THC to 8.14% THC within the past 5 years.”

    Comment by LDS Anarchist — November 10, 2007 @ 5:57 am |Reply

  23. Steffie, in #13 you mentioned heroin addiction. There is evidence contrary to the prevalent belief of the high addictiveness of heroin. Just read the following article:

    Lies and Myths About Opiates
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/cousins1.html

    Comment by LDS Anarchist — November 10, 2007 @ 6:05 am |Reply

  24. Anarchist,

    There is no mention in the WoW about Tea and Coffee either and yet they got grandfathered in.

    Tell your bishop about your smoking lobelia at your next Temple Recommend interview and see if you get one.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 11, 2007 @ 5:49 am |Reply

  25. Bishop Rick,

    The question asked is in the temple recommend interview, “Are you living the Word of Wisdom?” The answer given is either “yes” or “no.” I never (nor should anybody else) volunteer any more information than asked. As there is no prohibition in the Word of Wisdom to smoking lobelia or using that herb in any other way, nor is it against the law to use lobelia, I (and everyone) else can smoke it and still honestly answer “yes” to the Word of Wisdom question.

    The First Presidency has officially interpreted “hot drinks” to mean “coffee and tea.” That is their right. They can give official interpretations to the Word of Wisdom in First Presidency Statements. That I know of, no other part of the Word of Wisdom has been officially interpreted by a First Presidency Statement, so, if marijuana becomes totally legal, all LDS can use it as they see fit, without disbarment from the temple. As the Word of Wisdom is written now, it is difficult to see how a First Presidency, the present one or any future ones, could interpret any passage of it to specifically proscribe the use of marijuana. They might be able to do it as far as “hot drinks” goes, by stating that “hot drinks” now means “tea, coffee, and any hot drinks made with marijuana,” but it would be a long shot to say that smoking marijuana is now considered a hot drink.

    In order to ban marijuana, should it become legal, a new revelation would have to be revealed and accepted by the church as a binding commandment. Of course, the church can bind itself to anything through the law of common consent, so a prohibition against using legal marijuana could be upheld if a vote to do so happens. But barring such a vote, the First Presidency has no authority to bind the people to a new concept. Only the people themselves can bind themselves. Such as they did with the Word of Wisdom itself, 18 years after it was given as neither by commandment, nor by constraint. ‘sigh’ **shaking head**

    Comment by LDS Anarchist — November 11, 2007 @ 9:07 am |Reply

  26. Realistically do you think that the Church would be okay with pot smoking were it made legal? I think not, now it falls under illegal drugs, once it was made legal the Church would issue an official statement that it was a banned item on the WoW list. Member wouldn’t even blink an eye, in fact I think the Members would be in an uproar if it was legalized and the Church allowed pot smokers recommends.

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 11, 2007 @ 5:44 pm |Reply

  27. Anarchist,

    I didn’t vote to uphold the WoW as a commandment. Am I exempt?

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 12, 2007 @ 4:37 am |Reply

  28. #26, CoventryRM,

    I think both the church and Church would be okay with legalized pot. There are a lot of church members with cancer who would love to use it for that purpose. There was no bar against pot smoking prior to it becoming illegal, they’ll be no bar against if it becomes legal again. If the leaders even tried to get a sustaining vote on legalizing it, I think there would be plenty of saints who would vote no. What the finaly voting tally would be is anyone’s guess. Not everyone is a conservative Republican in this church, although the conservative Republican LDS would like to think so.

    #27, Bishop Rick, you are joking, right? Once the saints vote to make something a commandment, it is a commandment, even if the vote is that all elders must wear purple ties to church. The missionaries won’t baptize someone unless they commit to live the Word of Wisdom, so it is binding. The law of common consent can bind and unbind commandments, approve of or reject revelations, canonize or decanonize, etc. It is the election power (the second part of the phrase “calling and election made sure.”) So, what the majority says, goes, and that is always.

    Comment by LDS Anarchist — November 12, 2007 @ 7:44 am |Reply

  29. Has anyone heard about this yet? They are changing the title page of the Book of Mormon so it no longer says that the Native Americans are the principle ancestors of the Laminites. Below is the news article that talks about it. I’m so excited about this change.
    http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/243011/3/

    Comment by Jay — November 12, 2007 @ 2:59 pm |Reply

  30. If the Doctrine doesn’t fit just change it! It must be so comforting to know that you can rely on what a Prophet tells you is from God. I just don’t see how any Member can possibly feel good about this. It is no different if they were to say Joseph didn’t see God or the Angel Moroni. It was through this same line of revelation that he was told the Native Americans were the decedents of the Lamanites. It was a big TOPIC of discussion at the time, Smith having the answer and the book to prove it was a main reason Mormonism even gained traction.

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 12, 2007 @ 3:37 pm |Reply

  31. Yet the Lord’s promises with regard to the Lamanites began to be fulfilled with the coming forth of the Book of Mormon in this dispensation (see Ether 4:17), and I have lived to see them begin to flourish once more and to put on their beautiful garments.

    Truly our paths have met once more-we a mixed remnant of Israel, principally Ephraim, even referred to as Gentiles, now come forth out of captivity (see, e.g., 1 Nephi 13:19, 39), a people with a long history of apostasy and darkness and persecution, now only through the grace of Almighty God restored to the blessings of the gospel, that we in turn might be a blessing to the nations of the earth; and the Lamanites, also a people of disobedience now returned to the fold, whose sufferings have been sore, and punishment severe, and humiliation complete, whose affliction these many centuries must certainly be fruit meet for repentance. And what should be the nature of our reunion? We are relatives. We are brothers and sisters under the skin. We should receive each other with great joy. (75-53)

    Who are the Lamanites? The term Lamanite includes all Indians and Indian mixtures, such as the Polynesians, the Guatemalans, the Peruvians, as well as the Sioux, the Apache, the Mohawk, the Navajo, and others. It is a large group of great people.

    There are no blessings, of all the imaginable ones, to which you are not entitled-you, the Lamanites-when you are righteous, You are of royal blood, the children of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Lehi. (71-08)

    Lamanites share a royal heritage. I should like to address my remarks to you, our kinsmen of the isles of the sea and the Americas. Millions of you have blood relatively unmixed with gentile nations. Columbus called you “Indians,” thinking he had reached the East Indies. Millions of you are descendants of Spaniards and Indians, and are termed mestizos, and are called after your countries, for instance: Mexicans in Mexico; Guatemalans in Guatemala; Chilianos in Chile.

    You Polynesians of the Pacific are called Samoan or Maori, Tahitian or Hawaiian, according to your islands. There are probably sixty million of you on the two continents and on the Pacific Islands, all related by blood ties.

    The Lord calls you Lamanites, a name which has a pleasant ring, for many of the grandest people ever to live upon the earth were so called. In a limited sense, the name signifies the descendants of Laman and Lemuel, sons of your first American parent, Lehi; but you undoubtedly possess also the blood of the other sons, Sam, Nephi, and Jacob. And you likely have some Jewish blood from Mulek, son of Zedekiah, king of Judah. The name Lamanite distinguishes you from other peoples. It is not a name of derision or embarrassment, but one of which to be very proud.

    Spencer W. Kimball, The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, edited by Edward L. Kimball, p.596

    This is but one talk of many many talks by Prophets of god telling us and all American Indians along with everyone else with dark skin – besides the negroe of cours – THAT THEY WITHOUT ANY DOUBT ARE DECENDED FROM LEHI

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 12, 2007 @ 3:55 pm |Reply

  32. Jay

    There will be more excitement to come for you when they later announce there are no Lamanites ! lol

    THE
    DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS
    OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
    SECTION 32
    Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet to Parley P. Pratt and Ziba Peterson, October 1830. HC 1: 118–120. Great interest and desires were felt by the elders respecting the Lamanites, of whose predicted blessings the Church had learned from the Book of Mormon. In consequence, supplication was made that the Lord would indicate his will as to whether elders should be sent at that time to the INDIAN TRIBES in the West. The revelation followed.

    verse 2 “And that which I have appointed unto him is that he shall ago with my servants, Oliver Cowdery and Peter Whitmer, Jun., into the wilderness among the LAMANITES.”

    D&C 54: 8

    “And thus you shall take your journey into the regions westward, unto the land of Missouri, unto the borders of the LAMANITES.”

    D&C 49:24
    But before the great day of the Lord shall come, Jacob shall flourish in the wilderness, and the LAMANITES shall blossom as the rose.

    Comment by elder joseph — November 12, 2007 @ 5:45 pm |Reply

  33. Jay,

    That news was all over the Utah news channels and newspapers. Record comments on the articles as well…hundreds of comments in less than 48 hours. If you read the last comment and took the time to comment yourself, 15 other comments would beat you. As you can imagine it has been a huge debate on both sides.

    This just means that the church is finally admitting that the DNA results are valid, despite the years of apologist arguments to the contrary.

    I am like EJ. I think this is just the beginning.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 13, 2007 @ 2:03 am |Reply

  34. Bishop Rick

    I wish we could hear what goes on behind closed doors in salt Lake as the so called Apostles flap their wings over the state of things with the church, the resignations and the amount of church members and inactives with websites on the internet warning others about the church etc ….

    Maybe one day an apostle will make a break for it and write a book on the insider goings on …. it would make for a great comedy ! lol

    Comment by elder joseph — November 13, 2007 @ 4:34 pm |Reply

  35. Ej, just because people do not believe, or if they leave, that doesn’t mean the gospel isn’t true. https://mormonsrock.wordpress.com/2007/11/13/the-straight-and-narrow-path/

    Comment by steffielynn — November 13, 2007 @ 7:37 pm |Reply

  36. Good Lord Steffielynn,

    Open your eyes to what’s going on – I don’t even think you understand the implications of what this means!

    Comment by Brad — November 13, 2007 @ 8:02 pm |Reply

  37. steffie

    Goodness, it means that the Introduction to the book Of mormon was totally Innacurate for 26 years so far .It means that even I knew better than Bruce McConkie , so I wonder what qualification does he have to be an Apostle if he’s just been the big blunderer all his life ..
    Its clear to me that he never was a real Apostle …. just a Fake .

    In fact people have been saying for over a 100 years that the Indians are not Israelites who have been cursed with a dark skin ..

    The church should be ashamed of itself .I’ve read stories of American Indians being angry at the injustice of having converted to LDS believing they were descended from Lehi.

    Its totally ridiculous.

    How would you like to be taught that you were descended from Australian Aborigenes and that you were cursed with a white pinky skin for your ancestors filth and loathsomeness .. and that you will turn black again in the future when you join the Church of Jesus Christ of Aboriginal truth Restored ..

    This Church is offensive to

    Women (polygamy) and still believes its the order to come (no monogomy at all ) . they just don’t tell those who are not worthy to know yet ..

    Black people ( curse of cain and skin curse in the Book Of Mormon )

    American Indians and Latin American Natives ( telling them they are decended from Lehi )

    Who else are they going to anger and disrupt the lives of next ?

    Steffie 🙂

    Comment by elder joseph — November 13, 2007 @ 8:22 pm |Reply

  38. EJ, you left out the Muslims of other countries who (legally, according to their laws) are polygamous and cannot be baptized into the church for that reason. The church surely is offensive to legal polygamists, as well.

    Or how about the non-married couples living together? They can’t get baptized, either, unless they get married. You’ve heard of shot-gun wedding? Well, we practice baptism weddings. Surely, the church is offensive to them, too.

    Or how about the tobacco smokers, who have one of the hardest-to-break addictions. They can’t get baptized until they break that habit. Offensive to smokers, too.

    Alcoholics who can’t break the habit? Offensive to them, too.

    Drug-addicts, offensive to them, too.

    Christians who don’t believe in the Book of Mormon or other scriptures? Offensive to them, too.

    Seventh-day adventists? How dare the church worship on Sunday, the Lord’s day, and not on Saturday, the sabbath! Offensive to them, too.

    And the list goes on and on: atheists, hindus, rosicrucians, buddists, agnostics, democrats, republicans (see the Mitt Romney debates), libertarians, environmentalists, vegans, vegetarians, raw-foodists, holistic medice practitioners, scholars, doctors, scientists, politicians, kings, presidents, etc. The list is endless of people to whom the church offends.

    But none of this is important. The only important person on the list is you. You are obviously the one that is most offended.

    Comment by LDS Anarchist — November 13, 2007 @ 9:09 pm |Reply

  39. LDS Anarchist

    What are you talking about ? Your lengthy article has no relevence whatsover ..

    I have been very clear on the three offensive aspects of the church ….

    You said

    ” You’ve heard of shot-gun wedding? Well, we practice baptism weddings. Surely, the church is offensive to them, too.”

    Yes I heard about the baptism of a girl from a former missionary .
    The missionaries were that desperate for a baptism they talked her into marrying her violent Boyfriend who beat her up regular …….

    Several years later that missionary has left the Mormon cult and is absolutely ashamed of what he did under pressure for baptisms .

    You said

    “The only important person on the list is you. You are obviously the one that is most offended.”

    You should be ashamed of yourself .
    In saying that You have no respect for
    Black people ,
    or
    women who suffered unfer polygamy ( OLD MEN CALLING TENS TO CONCIEVE WITH THEM )or
    even American Indians who have been duped by the Church’s arrogant fanaticism .

    The only offence I’ve suffered under the Mormon Church is that its got idiots like you in it .

    Comment by elder joseph — November 13, 2007 @ 9:57 pm |Reply

  40. EJ, my point is that the church can be offensive to everyone. Just as any church can be offensive to everyone. The Catholics did some pretty offensive things, like killing people who didn’t believe as they did. The Protestants did some pretty offensive things, like killing people who didn’t believe as they did. The Jews did some pretty offensive things, like killing people who didn’t believe as they did. You have singled out an organization that in comparison to other organizations, is like comparing lambs to lions. The argument you make that the church is offensive to women, Indians and blacks doesn’t hold up. These are just generalizations. There are women, Indians and blacks in the church, who are in the church because they want to be in the church. If they are so offended, why did they and why do they join the church? You can say, some women, some Indians, some blacks are offended, and that would be more accurate, but even that, why say it? Some jews, some (name whatever group you want to name) are always going to be offended by the church. It makes no difference. The only point you are making is that YOU are offended by the church. Citing other groups means nothing. The only one you should cite is your own offense.

    That a church or religion offends doesn’t make it bad. Jesus was VERY offensive to the religious rulers of his time. Does that make Jesus bad?

    You are worried about the PAST racist policies of the church, when there are organizastions outside of the church which are PRESENTLY racist. Why not harp on their current racist policies. You are worried about the PAST polygamous practices of the church, when there are organizations outside the church (the fundamentals, etc.) which are PRESENTLY polygamous. Why not harp on them? There are plenty of Indian-haters, the church not being one of them, so why not harp on them?

    Your obsession with the church is fine with me, but if you are going to harp on it about how offensive it is, tell me and everyone else why it offends YOU, not why it offends others. You are not the mouthpiece of all blacks, women and Indians. So, just speak for EJ.

    P.S. I never said I have no respect for these people.

    Comment by LDS Anarchist — November 13, 2007 @ 11:13 pm |Reply

  41. The problem with comparing the Church to all those other organizations and Churches – except for the jews if you believe in the OT …. THEY DON’T CLAIM DEFINE REVELATION FROM GOD! LIVING PROPHETS ETC!

    Mormons claim PERFECTION in the Gospel but when held up to that standard all of sudden…. They are just men running the Church …. and that my friend is the most honest true statement a Mormon ever makes … They are just Men! I doubt EJ or even myself would even have an issue with Mormonism, but for that obviously false claim. Anybody really willing to open thier eyes and think rationally can see.

    BofM – When I was on my mission we baptized a family from Argentina, I told them AS WAS CHURCH DOCTRINE at the time they were decendents of LEHI! You should check out this book about your ancestry.

    The Church can continue to change and dilute down its claims and certain people because of thier co-dependence, guilt, family and fear will continue to follow and be fooled. It really is quite sad.

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 13, 2007 @ 11:56 pm |Reply

  42. EJ!!!!!!!!!

    LDS anarchist has not acted disrespectful at all, so you need to be nice!!!!!!!!!!!

    not only that his points are SO right on! 🙂

    Comment by steffielynn — November 14, 2007 @ 12:05 am |Reply

  43. What’s up steffers,

    So I’m reading through this medical mary jane mess. There seems to be a lot of good points of view here. Yes marijuana is natural and has a lot of positives. but then I think the main question would be, if medical marijuana was to be legalized in a control state and given to patients for certain types of illness, could a Mormon still use it? granite I don’t know much about the Mormon laws, but I am under the impression that you cannot, or you’re not suppose to put anything into your body that could be damaging. If this is the case I do not see how you could smoke a joint. Yea it might help ease the pain, and relax the nerves. It might not be as addictive as other drugs, and of course it does help a person cope with their illness. But what does pot heal? Seriously, it doesn’t heal cancer, it doesn’t heal migraines, and it doesn’t breaks in your body. All the THC does is block your synapses not allowing your mind to send “transmissions” to the other parts of your body. Marijuana would be more of a temporary fix to a major problem that has no solution. I could not see rolling up a joint for my nephew b/c he has a head ache. Once again there are a lot of benefits to smoking pot for any particular illness, but there are also a lot negative sides here. Think about it, you’re sick your at work, could you smoke a joint and do your job? I know I couldn’t, I was either laughing or spaced out. I think everyone here is missing the obvious and that is for action there is a reaction, forever positive there is a negative, if you want to help ease the pain for short period of time that great, but are you prepared to deal with the long term side effects? Now if there was a way to extract some THC, then I think we would be onto something, but all because marijuana is natural does not mean it is 100 percent good for you. If that was the case then I think I will eat some mushrooms tonight and go on a trip, I mean they are natural. I do not see how any Mormon could be allowed to smoke a joint.

    Comment by the coolest Mck — November 14, 2007 @ 12:39 am |Reply

  44. Hmm, good points. I guess I’m looking at it as a pain reliever, and Mormons do use them, are we supposed to? I would say yes, if you are in pain. I don’t think there are any meds out there that don’t come without side affects, even Tylenol has pretty bad ones. (check out the warnings on the bottle) I’m thinking there must be Mormons out there that do smoke it where it is legal (like cali) for medical purposes. (check out the link in comment 6, it is a article in an LDS news paper). And I’m not saying if it was legal the prophet would say it was ok, I am curious to know what he would do. My personal opinion is that it should be legal and mormons should beable to use it. (for pain). But again this is just MY opinion, I don’t speak for all mormons or for the church

    Comment by steffielynn — November 14, 2007 @ 2:18 am |Reply

  45. I think this was already stated, but you don’t have to smoke marijuana. You can eat it. Some older patients make rice krispy treats laced with marijuana because they don’t want to smoke.

    Comment by Jay — November 14, 2007 @ 2:31 am |Reply

  46. Ahh yes, and of course brownies.

    Also “the coolest Mck” you said

    “Think about it, you’re sick your at work, could you smoke a joint and do your job? ”

    As with any medication there will be warnings, such as do not drive, do not opperate heavy machinary etc. Do not take at work, well i don’t know about that last one but if you are ill you probably would not be at work so you wouldn’t take it there anyways!

    Comment by steffielynn — November 14, 2007 @ 2:41 am |Reply

  47. That’s a great idea steffers, I never thought of that; let’s put warning labels on drugs, so people won’t use them when they are not suppose to! I mean look how perfectly that works with all the other medications out there. And pot brownies are awesome! I use to get more stoned off those then just smoking the stuff. So I am not sure what the point you are making with this? I really don’t know, I mean all because you change the way you take a substance doesn’t mean you are changing the substance and its chemical makeup. soooo you’re still getting everything that comes with smoking pot, just in a chocolate form that tastes better. The fact remains, no matter how you try to justify it to yourself, you are still putting something in your body that has no “healing power” and has side effects that are long lasting and sometime permanent.

    Comment by the coolest Mck — November 14, 2007 @ 5:04 am |Reply

  48. Mck,

    First of all, I don’t think the LDS church would say MJ is OK even if it were legal. The natural substance argument is weak. Alcohol is also a natural byproduct.

    That said, just because something doesn’t cure anything and doesn’t have long lasting effects is also a weak argument…Aspirin comes to mind.

    That said II: I don’t the LDS church would have a problem with a substance that was legally prescribed by a licensed physician…but that is different from rolling your own.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 14, 2007 @ 6:18 am |Reply

  49. Migraine meds, don’t cure migrains, they take away the pain. Cancer patients take pain meds to relieve pain, it doesn’t cure the cancer. My point is that marijuana should be legal and people who suffer from these things should be allowed to take it. I have seen what oxy contin can do, even when perscribed, It takes over your mind. I have friends who are 26 years old and have lost EVERYTHING because of the addiction. And this medication WAS prescribed.

    I think marijuana is a much better alternative. Mormons would have a problem smoking, so taking it another way would be helpful. I don’t feel that because my friend Sally who is suffering from a horrible painful disease should be denied something that will help her to take away the pain. Mormons get sick, and they should not have to suffer or become addicted to something nasty (valem, vicatin, oxy contin and many more) A drug is a drug, but some are safer and more beneficial, I think pot is a better alternative! (for everyone not just mormons).

    And has no one read the story I linked in comment 6? I want to know what you think about it. The guy must be LDS right??????

    Comment by steffielynn — November 14, 2007 @ 1:17 pm |Reply

  50. LDS Anarchist

    You said in post 40 ” EJ, my point is that the church can be offensive to everyone.”

    Your church claims that all other churches have been in darkness with no connection to God whatsoever and that the LDS church is finally a church which has GOD or JESUS CHRIST or BOTH personally in charge and that no prophet can lead anyone astray .

    Well The Facts show the complete opposite. The LDS church is nothing more than an organisation run by deluded men ( some dangerous in the past )exactly like The Jehovahs Witness version of Truth ..

    Both organisations have to hide their real beliefs and /or history from prospective converts ..

    you said

    ” You are not the mouthpiece of all blacks, women and Indians. So, just speak for EJ.”

    Why don’t you ask all the blacks in church and those who left about Brigham Young and all the others teachings on black skin and find out for yourself ?

    Why don’t you ask all the women in church and those who left if they think its fine to call young teens to marry OLD Mormon leaders and threaten Hell and damnation if they don’t conform ?

    Why don’t you ask The American Indians in church and those who left how they feel being told they were the Principal Ancestors of Lehi and now it seems they are not ?

    Then you will see just who you do offend and not only myself and not only that , you’ll see a mass exodus as well .

    Comment by elder joseph — November 14, 2007 @ 1:34 pm |Reply

  51. I’m a women and I’m not offended

    Comment by steffielynn — November 14, 2007 @ 1:43 pm |Reply

  52. BR,

    I am so glad you think my arguments are weak, this shows that you have no clue what you’re talking about. I’m glad you’re playing along but you really need to do some research,

    http://www.marijuana-addiction.net/marijuana-side-effects.htm

    Also I’m glad you brought up aspirin, do you know how it works? I’m guessing you don’t. Headaches are caused from reduced blood flow to the cerebral cortex, muscular strains to the head and neck along with emotional stress can also cause headaches. What happens is your brain changes the serotonin that moves through your receptors. A neurotransmitter, serotonin, is thought to be involved in migraines because many of the drugs used to treat migraines alter the binding of serotonin to various receptors. So yes, aspirin cures! Its chemical makeup alters serotonin with a substance known as salicylates. Now pay close attention steffers, b/c aspirin cures. It’s a chemical make up with one goal to alter a chemical imbalance in your brain and stop the pain resulting in a cured headache. One more thin BR, your right about the difference in rolling your own, so to speak. It already comes pre-rolled for ya.

    steff, you made some comments to that I would like to touch on. you mentioned that cancer patients are taking pain killers to relieve the pain and not cure the cancer, so they are taking something for the pain, why introduce something else that can actually cause more problems and can do more long term harm than good? Unless you’re going on the basis that the person is going to die anyway and they should live as pain free as possible. If that’s how you feel then just load em up with morphine b/c in the end it won’t matter. I think you and bishop rick are really looking at this from a narrow minded stand point and not thinking outside the box at all. Sure there are positives but there are a lot of negatives also that seem to fall on blind eyes and deaf ears here.

    so with that I’m done arguing about medical marijuana and its magical powers that you seem fit to justify in relieving all your pain. Almost sounds hypocritical to hear a bishop argue for marijuana. But I’m sure you mean well.

    MCK

    Comment by the coolest Mck — November 14, 2007 @ 11:01 pm |Reply

  53. Stefie

    you said concerning Polygamy

    “I’m a women and I’m not offended”

    Tell me that again when your 2 to 3 times your age Stake President tells you he has a secret revelation that you should marry him while your husband is away !

    or tell me that when your daughter of 14 has been asked to marry a 37 year old Priesthood Holder to ensure hers and your family’s salvation into the CK.

    Comment by elder joseph — November 14, 2007 @ 11:15 pm |Reply

  54. Steffie, I am going to come across as an insensitive jerk to everyone else with this comment, so I hope you have read my other comment on the post about your conversion story. *grin*

    You are in the unfortunate position of being bombarded by a core group of people who will NEVER respect what you are saying. They have made their own decisions and will not rest until they have convinced everyone possible that they are right – and you are wrong. You seem to be a very intelligent and caring person, so I’m sure you realize this already, but not one of these people has ONCE credited your religious beliefs with ANY degree of legitimacy. One of them has expressed himself in fairly respectful language, but even he has not granted you the courtesy of actually respecting what you are saying. Overall, they have not listened to a word you have said, and, in actuality, they have ridiculed and belittled and mocked them at every turn.

    I faced the same issue when I created my own blog. I had seen others high-jacked in this exact same way, so I intentionally chose a blog name that would not appear in any anti-Mormon search engine sweep. I guarantee that’s how these guys found your blog – because of the title.

    If you are willing to put up with this, I admire you – but I would not continue if it were happening to me. It is rude and borderline abusive – and they simply don’t recognize how unChristian it is.

    Comment by Ray — November 15, 2007 @ 12:54 am |Reply

  55. the coolest Mck, you stated, “I think you and bishop rick are really looking at this from a narrow minded stand point and not thinking outside the box at all.”

    I’d say the narrow-minded point-of-view is the one you are taking. Allowing the God-given plant to be used by people as they see fit without restraining them in their decision is the open-minded view. You are thinking within the box, it being the constricted viewpoint, treating adults as children who need to be told what to do, by you and your legislators, which instructions need to be obeyed upon pain of imprisonment.

    So, you’ve mixed up your terms. I have no problem with your viewpoint, as we are all entitled to one, but don’t call black, white and white, black. You are expressing the narrow-minded view, not Steffie.

    Comment by LDS Anarchist — November 15, 2007 @ 1:05 am |Reply

  56. MCK,

    I just went back and did a search on my comment. I looked real hard several times, then one more time just to make sure I didn’t miss anything, but I couldn’t find anywhere where I mentioned aspirin was used for headaches.

    I do happen to know that aspirin is used for many things. Some that it does not cure (like the root cause of back pain) and other things it does cure (like fevers).

    The point is that there are many legal things that are used in situations where nothing is cured, so your FREAKIN MJ ARGUMENT IS WEAK YOU FREAKIN MORON.

    I agree 100% with Steffie that MJ is much better for people than many other things that are legal. Pumping someone full of morphine is what you do with terminal patients. Not all cancer patients are terminal but the pain is the same.

    STOP NOW BEFORE YOU EMBARRASS YOURSELF FURTHER.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 15, 2007 @ 5:18 am |Reply

  57. The discussion about the change in the Book of Mormon introduction is incredibly misguided, of course. It was a threadjack by Jay to bring it up here so feel free to delete this Steff, but I thought I would correct the record. The Church, obviously, is not stating by this change that the Native Americans are not descended from Lehi. The change is just to eliminate the claim that their “principal” ancestors are Lehi’s descendants. That claim is found nowhere in scripture and is not based on revelation. It was a supposition that we have now learned is most likely untrue.

    As to whether the Church’s doctrines are offensive to women, black people and Native Americans, well, they can speak for themselves, but if that were the case, you would expect to find few or none of such people in the Church. Since the church is flourishing among all of those groups, my guess is that they are not offended and have found, like Steff, that the Church teaches the true gospel of Christ. People vote best with their feet. Those who predict that the Church will stop growing and people will leave it en masse are destined to be disappointed.

    Comment by MCQ — November 15, 2007 @ 9:56 am |Reply

  58. MCQ, thank you for your comment! It’s nice to have someone who knows what they are talking about!

    I made a post on the changes to the book of Mormon, so you all can now discuss it there 🙂

    https://mormonsrock.wordpress.com/2007/11/15/changes-to-the-book-of-mormon-intro/

    Comment by steffielynn — November 15, 2007 @ 2:13 pm |Reply

  59. MCQ

    you said

    “As to whether the Church’s doctrines are offensive to women, black people and Native Americans, well, they can speak for themselves, but if that were the case, you would expect to find few or none of such people in the Church. Since the church is flourishing among all of those groups, my guess is that they are not offended and have found,”

    Its probably because most of them don’t know the real beliefs of the church .

    The missionaries ( if they even know themselves )hide it from any prospective converts .

    The church hides Polygamy, blacks,Indian origins from Sunday School books and deceptively makes the polygamists appear to be monogomists .

    Try mentioning any of it in sacrament if you dare ?

    Comment by elder joseph — November 15, 2007 @ 6:04 pm |Reply

  60. MCQ, you said, “Those who predict that the Church will stop growing and people will leave it en masse are destined to be disappointed.”

    Although I don’t think that the church will stop growing, I do believe people will soon leave it en masse. I guess we’ll see which of us has the spirit of prophecy and revelation…

    Comment by LDS Anarchist — November 15, 2007 @ 8:54 pm |Reply

  61. Actually the Church stopped growing years ago, the system of record keeping of members is skewed to make it look like there is growth when there actually is none.

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 15, 2007 @ 8:57 pm |Reply

  62. LDS Anarchist,

    I actually don’t care what people do to be honest. I hate blogging and got sucked into this crap b/c a friend on here asked me to post a point of view. I actually think pot is great! I was just taking the opposite standpoint b/c I see most everyone on here pro pot. I figured I would present an argument from the other side of the fence. I like your postings and there is a lot of thought put behind what a lot of people say on here. I think to call anyone’s argument as “weak” is just plain ignorant and does represent narrow mindness b/c you are not allowing yourself to think of any other stand point but your own. Anyhow, I’m not into this religious thing at all, religion is interesting but seems to cause more harm than good. Especially one with no foundation, but that’s a whole other topic in itself and i better stop now before i embarrass anyone. The more I read what people post and how people argue over “god” and beliefs the more and more I get turned away. its sad how much a belief can divide people. But anyhow I think I will hang up my blogging, yall take care and good luck smoking pot or finding some form of god

    MCK is OUT

    Comment by the coolest Mck — November 15, 2007 @ 10:26 pm |Reply

  63. MCK 🙂

    Aww, i’m sorry they were so mean! Not really, actually I thought it was funny. Your arguments WERE really weak, and if you don’t stand behind them, then that is obviously why they were weak. Don’t be such a pansy!

    When having a discussion it is always good to use your own opinions! Not use another opinion for arguments sake! You are such a goober 🙂

    (by the way I am the one who asked him to comment, I just didn’t know his comments were going to be so lame) I’m kidding MCK I love you 🙂

    *** MCK is my hubby’s best friend, They are over seas together, you guys should have been nicer to him! Meanies 🙂

    Comment by steffielynn — November 15, 2007 @ 11:03 pm |Reply

  64. Oh sure tell us now.

    MCK is right. Calling someone’s argument weak is a bit narrow minded. All arguments are valid.

    Steffie please forgive my insolence. I just find it hard to back down when challenged, unless the challenge is baseless. In that case I just ignore it. So getting an energetic response from me is actually a compliment…sideways…sorta.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 15, 2007 @ 11:30 pm |Reply

  65. Steffie, 4 smiley faces in one comment?! You are my new hero. (Now I have to go back to my real life – commenting on other blogs.) 🙂

    Comment by Ray — November 15, 2007 @ 11:34 pm |Reply

  66. EJ:

    “Its probably because most of them don’t know the real beliefs of the church .

    The missionaries ( if they even know themselves )hide it from any prospective converts .

    The church hides Polygamy, blacks,Indian origins from Sunday School books and deceptively makes the polygamists appear to be monogomists .

    Try mentioning any of it in sacrament if you dare ?”

    I discussed those topics and many others with those investigating the Church when I was a missionary. I was always willing to discuss any question and if I didn’t know the answer I would always research it and come back with the best answer I could. It seems to me that Steff’s experience as a convert was probably similar. She studied a lot of material before she was baptised and was probably exposed to all these issues.

    I’m now an Elder’s Quorum instructor and I regularly discuss those subjects as part of my lessons. The instruction manual for the next two years is on the teachings of Joseph Smith. We will, of course, discuss the fact that he had multiple wives, as one of my wife’s ancestors is Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, who was one of Joseph’s wives, and a faithful member throughout her life.

    You can read more about her here:

    http://mcqesq.wordpress.com/2007/08/15/mary-elizabeth-rollins-lightner/

    The Church cooperated completely with the PBS documentary “The Mormons” which also discussed all of those topics.

    You can see the summary of the PBS Doc here:

    The filmmaker was given unprecedented access to church leaders and members and the documentary aired during prime time and was seen by millions of people. The Church is not hiding its history or doctrine. And the church continues to grow, with more missionaries in more countries and more church buildings every year, despite what you say, Coventry.

    Growth, by itself, is proof of nothing, of course, but to say that the church has stopped growing is false. By any measure, it continues to grow, even among the groups you say should be offended, EJ.

    It strikes me as extremely arrogant and offensive of you to assume that these converts from these groups are ignorant of the church they are joining. You should give them more credit than that.

    Comment by MCQ — November 16, 2007 @ 12:44 am |Reply

  67. MCQ,

    I am a convert. I was never taught the “meat” but was only given the “milk”. It is my experience that you are an exception, not the rule. I think it is very reasonable to assume the majority (please note majority) of converts are not introduced these topics prior to their baptism, at least not by the church. I never did on my mission. In fact, we taught false doctrine like the American Indians are Lamanites.

    It is good that you have discussed these things, but I have never been in a sunday school class or EQ lesson where these topics have been brought up and I have been in several wards across the US.

    And, we have to be honest here. The church did not solicit PBS to make this documentary. The church provided extensive access to GAs because they wanted to make sure their view was presented. This was a defensive move, not a proactive one.

    The church really does hide its history. It only brings up topics from its history when it is forced to, and then only on a limited basis.

    Personally I think this approach is wise, but we have to give credit where credit is due and none when none is merited.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 16, 2007 @ 1:18 am |Reply

  68. BR

    I didn’t want you to be nice to him just because he’s my friend, that would not be fair! I loved your comment! And notice I did not correct you! So not like me! He just likes to argue, he’s just not very good at it! 🙂

    Ray, I have to use the smiley faces so people know i’m being sarcastic, it’s hard to express sarcasm on a blog. I don’t like to use “lol”. But I’m glad I’m your new hero!!!!!!! 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 😀 there are six just for you! 🙂 opps now seven! (and those smiles are not sarcastic ones!)

    Comment by steffielynn — November 16, 2007 @ 1:30 am |Reply

  69. Membership grows, activity does not. The Church Claims over 12 million members, with active members at only 12 million. You only have to show up to priesthood once a quarter from what I remember to be considered active – I was once the Elders Quorum Secretary and that is what I remember –

    Most of my Mormon friends that have left the church have not even taken their name of the Church records, some have but from what I understand they may even still be counting name removals anyway. They keep inactive lost members on the record until they are 100.

    “On the question of how many Mormons are actively participating, Brigham Young University demographer Tim Heaton noted in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism that attendance at weekly sacrament meetings in the early 1990s was between 40 percent and 50 percent in Canada, the South Pacific, and the United States. In Europe and Africa, the average was 35 percent. Attendance in Asia and Latin America hovered around 25 percent.
    By multiplying the number of members in each area by these fractions, David G. Stewart Jr. estimates worldwide activity at about 35 percent – which would give the church about 4 million active members.
    Stewart, an active Mormon who served a mission to Russia in the early 1990s, has been conducting research on LDS missionary work in 20 countries for 13 years, examining census figures, and analyzing published data.
    Take Brazil. In its 2000 Census, 199,645 residents identified themselves as LDS, while the church listed 743,182 on its rolls. “

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 16, 2007 @ 1:47 am |Reply

  70. “Growth, by itself, is proof of nothing, of course, but to say that the church has stopped growing is false. By any measure, it continues to grow,”

    Just have to correct the false statements and propaganda used by TBMS and the Church.

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 16, 2007 @ 2:03 am |Reply

  71. Coventry that is well-known and interesting information that is completely irrelevant to our discussion. But thank you.

    Comment by MCQ — November 16, 2007 @ 2:04 am |Reply

  72. Wierd I read your comment #71 and then posted mine #70

    hmmmm maybe I actually had a revelation as to what your were going to say, perhaps it is a sign.

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 16, 2007 @ 2:09 am |Reply

  73. BR,

    Taught false doctrine? Shame on you. But as for Native Americans being Lamanites, well, you need to define what you mean by “doctrine” and by “Lamanites” to determine whether that is true or not. For me, the BoM clearly refers to the people who populated the new world when Columbus landed as “Lamanites” and/or “The seed of my brethren” (Nephi speaking). Whether this means that they have detectable traces of the Lehi family DNA in them is a completely separate question. I don’t think we can put our faith in DNA technology to that degree.

    I think the Church is more proactive than you give it credit for. You have certainly taken a more cynical view of its interaction with Helen Whitney (the PBS filmmaker) than she does. Having heard her speak, I think she would disagree with your characterization.

    Comment by MCQ — November 16, 2007 @ 2:11 am |Reply

  74. “TBM” is something I consider to be a compliment Coventry, but it betrays something about you that you use such terminology. Just so you know.

    Comment by MCQ — November 16, 2007 @ 2:15 am |Reply

  75. Signs follow them that believe.

    Comment by MCQ — November 16, 2007 @ 2:17 am |Reply

  76. I picked that up from here, mainly from the TBM’s here so what does it betray about me?

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 16, 2007 @ 2:20 am |Reply

  77. MCQ,

    I remember showing the “Ancient America Speaks” filmstrip that talked about Latin Americans being Lamanites (direct descendants of Lehi) and that Quetzalcoatl was Jesus.

    Both of these teachings (I won’t use doctrine) are now known to be false. This is what I was referring to.

    Seed implies direct descendant.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 16, 2007 @ 6:49 am |Reply

  78. BR,

    Let’s not talk about filmstrips. Heck, I showed the filmstrip “Johnny Lingo.” I later discovered, to my horror, that, in fact, there’s no such thing as a “ten cow woman.” Imagine my anguish, BR, just imagine.

    Comment by mcquinn — November 16, 2007 @ 8:06 am |Reply

  79. “Seed implies direct descendant.”

    That’s just silly.

    Comment by mcquinn — November 16, 2007 @ 8:20 am |Reply

  80. mcquinn 78,

    Now that was funny. How many cows is your wife or girlfriend?

    mcquinn 79,

    Not silly at all.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 16, 2007 @ 9:05 am |Reply

  81. My wife is worth more cows than I can pay. I’m in cow debt.
    Luckily, however, I didn’t find her in a tree.

    After years of therapy, I was able to admit the possibility that Johnny Lingo is not the sharpest trader in the islands. It was a blow to my testimony, but hope to recover.

    Direct descent=direct unbroken line from father to son. The word “seed” carres no such connotation.

    Webster says:

    seed (n): progeny

    progeny (n):1 a: descendants, children b: offspring of animals or plants.

    Nothing “direct” about it. You just made that up, didn’t you?

    Comment by mcquinn — November 16, 2007 @ 9:37 am |Reply

  82. I had totally forgotten about some of those film strips I carried around. Thanks for the reminder and the laugh!

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 16, 2007 @ 2:54 pm |Reply

  83. MCQ and MCQUINN = same person?

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 16, 2007 @ 3:01 pm |Reply

  84. MCQ

    You said

    “It strikes me as extremely arrogant and offensive of you to assume that these converts from these groups are ignorant of the church they are joining. You should give them more credit than that.”

    I was told by my Bishop not to tell any black members in church about the racist history ….. It seems to me that they haven’t a clue .Its obvious they have not been told the true history…

    Many of our black members are not that stupid actually , The majority of them are joining the church here in ther UK to help with Asylum .Once granted they do not come back to church , they have better things to do.

    Its probably similar in the black countries .The church represents White American prosperity and freedom. Its their ticket out .

    Comment by elder joseph — November 16, 2007 @ 3:26 pm |Reply

  85. MCQ,

    Of course I made it up, but please show me a reference where direct descendant = direct line from father to son. I think you made that up.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 16, 2007 @ 4:43 pm |Reply

  86. Here is what one my past missionary comps had to say, I asked him if he remembered the Film Strips

    “Yeah, I remember that filmstrip we would take around with us. Holy cow those were the days.

    Yeah, either these guys are prophets who are super intelligent and talk to god or they aren’t.

    Some possibilites:
    a) god deliberately gave the prophets false information for 170 years
    b) the prophets misinterpreted god’s thoughts on the lamenites being Indians, and god never saw fit to correct them during 170 years
    c) god doesn’t communicate to the prophets on minor points of the origin of the bom
    d) god isn’t talking to the mormon prophets”

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 16, 2007 @ 5:30 pm |Reply

  87. Coventry,

    You left off:

    e) none of the above (plug your own meaning in)

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 16, 2007 @ 6:17 pm |Reply

  88. That was my favorite AP from my mission that made the remark I am sure he would agree with you though 🙂 I do!

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 16, 2007 @ 6:20 pm |Reply

  89. #86 – I am a hardcore parser. I absolutely hate it when people get bent out of shape about a meaning that is not in the actual words being discussed – or when they fixate on one possible meaning and ignore others. That is what drives me craziest about almost all of the Introduction discussions/debates. There is another very simple possibility – and, frankly, it is the one that makes the most sense from a purely linguistic standpoint.

    The wording in the Introduction that was just eliminated was “principal ancestors.” Everyone assumes “principal ancestors” means “most prominent source of DNA.” However, if you look at the word “principal” on dictionary.com, the very first definition reads: “first or highest in rank, importance, value, etc.” “Rank” would fit the DNA interpretation, but both “importance” and “value” can mean VERY different things. Given that the Book of Mormon is a spiritual history, the best reading of the actual phrase IN CONTEXT is “most important ancestors” or “most valuable ancestors” – not “most prominent source of DNA.” In that light, the Lamanites really are the “principal ancetors” of the American Indians – even if there is only a microscopic link of actual lineage involved.

    On a personal level, my “principal ancestor” is my father – since I am his spitting image and recently have been mis-identified as his brother. One of my daughters, on the other hand, is the spitting image of her great-grandmother. Spiritually, however, my wife’s “principal ancestor” is her 5th great-grandfather – the man who joined the Church in Italy and crossed the plains with the Mormon pioneers. She is connected genetically more fully with her own parents, but everyone in the family recognizes JDM as the most important mortal source of their spiritual legacy.

    Personally, I never had a problem with the wording, given this meaning, but I am glad the change was made – simply because of how the vast majority of people (inside and outside the Church) interpreted the “principal ancestors” wording. Any lineage connection, no matter how faint, would justify a claim of ancestry and validate the claims of former prophets, and I seriously doubt that will ever be provable one way or another. I think the DNA research did lead to the wording change, but I don’t see it as a “correction of language” as much as an “elimination of misunderstanding” and “correction of interpretation.”

    Comment by Ray — November 16, 2007 @ 8:11 pm |Reply

  90. Ahhh Ray thank you! I was trying to make sense out of it and because I don’t know anything about it, well it stinks to not know.

    Now I know, and even understand it! Yah!! Thank you for making it clear!!!! If you don’t mind, I want to copy and paste your comment on another post! And if you do mind, oh well, by the time you read this I will have already done it 🙂

    Comment by steffielynn — November 16, 2007 @ 8:17 pm |Reply

  91. Ray,

    Your description of what may have been meant works nicely post event, but in reality it is just your opinion. The main problem is it doesn’t jive with what BRM and other prophets/apostles have said. They were pretty clear that their understanding was the American Indians were Lamanites, i.e. were direct descendants of Lehi. There is no room for most important ancestor in there.

    I also think all the Mongolian ancestors would take offense to that statement.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 16, 2007 @ 9:14 pm |Reply

  92. MCQ,

    All descendants are direct descendants. There is no such thing as an indirect descendant. Either you are a descendant or you are not. All you have to be in order to be a direct descendant of Lehi is trace your line back to him. If you can do this, you are a descendant, yea even a direct descendant. This takes into account inter-marriages and every other kind of marriage.

    If you can trace your line back to Lehi, you are a direct descendant.

    Oh yea, it doesn’t matter what sex you are either.
    By your definition, Steffie is not a direct descendant of anyone.

    If Native Americans have any % of Lamanite blood in them, their line can be traced back to Lehi. It is pretty cut and dried.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 16, 2007 @ 9:38 pm |Reply

  93. BR:

    All descendants are direct descendants? Why not just say “descendant” then? Why use the qualifier “direct?” Well, because it means something different.

    Obviously Father to son means daughters as well. I was speaking generically. No offense to Steff intended.

    Comment by MCQ — November 16, 2007 @ 11:53 pm |Reply

  94. Yes, MCQ=mcquinn

    Comment by MCQ — November 16, 2007 @ 11:54 pm |Reply

  95. MCQ,

    Descendant = Direct Descendant.
    It is not uncommon for someone to use Direct Descendant.
    If I could go back and edit my comment to say merely Descendant, I would…it would not change the meaning.

    Statements like “Father to Son” do not imply daughters, but if that is what you meant for it to imply, I can accept that.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 17, 2007 @ 12:11 am |Reply

  96. Whether the American Indians have Lehi as an ancestor is pretty-much unprovable. But it’s also not really disprovable either and the DNA studies haven’t even come close to doing it.

    1. Lehi didn’t have “Jewish” DNA. He was of the tribe of Ephraim. Ishmael (who accompanied Lehi) was of Manasseh. Not Judah.

    2. Lehi was only a “descendant of Ephraim,” which does not mean he had a direct paternal line.

    3. Scholarly consensus is that the events described in the actual text of the Book of Mormon occurred within an area that probably wasn’t much bigger than present-day Alabama. No continent-wide spread of the people.

    4. Jewish DNA today is hard to trace even in known and established Jewish communities.

    5. Middle Eastern, and Jewish, DNA as it exists today has been so altered, changed, and mixed from Lehi’s day that it does not present a good comparison for determining if American Indians have any genetic markers from ANCIENT Israelites.

    6. We don’t know what other people the Lamanites (and Nephites) mixed with during the time period described in the Book of Mormon. The mere fact that the highly condensed and abridged record that makes up our present Book of Mormon doesn’t mention it does not mean it didn’t happen.

    7. We don’t know who the Lamanites mixed with after the end of the Book of Mormon narrative.

    8. It is a common consensus among non-Mormon scholars of American history that approximately 90% of the American Indian population died from smallpox and other European diseases very shortly after the first Spanish explorers encountered the New World. Entire civilizations vanished before Cortez and Pizzaro ever saw them. This could easily have created a genetic bottleneck that certain strains of genetic markers did not survive.

    That’s enough to go on for now.

    Comment by Seth R. — November 17, 2007 @ 2:23 am |Reply

  97. MCQ

    I am still curious to have you explain your comment about TBM and how using that betrays something about me.

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 17, 2007 @ 3:38 am |Reply

  98. Original BOM intro:

    “…and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.”

    Actually they should change it to say “they are not among the ancestors of American Indians”.

    Or maybe start it with “Once upon a time…”

    Comment by SkiUtah — November 17, 2007 @ 3:43 am |Reply

  99. Hey back to the filmstrip thing, was there a black market in your mission for those little flashlight projectors? I am pretty sure I sold mine for more than I paid to some greenie.

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 17, 2007 @ 4:02 am |Reply

  100. Seth

    Why are you still making the DNA arguments the CHurch just conceeded. So you don’t have to argue that anymore.

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 17, 2007 @ 4:05 am |Reply

  101. Seth,

    Please !!

    Don’t start a debate based on the nonsense contained in your 8 points.

    Give me a friggin break.

    Steffie,

    I beg you not to give any of the nonsense in comment #96 any credence. I know you will want to because Seth is pro-LDS, but believe me, nothing he wrote amounts to anything.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 17, 2007 @ 4:08 am |Reply

  102. CRM and BR, actually every point Seth made is accurate. One thing he didn’t add about Lehi is that the Book of Mormon states explicitly that Lehi did not know his own Israelite ancestry until *after* he read it in the record of Laban. Another thing Seth didn’t add is that we have no idea whatsoever about Lehi’s wife’s ancestry. It is not mentioned anywhere in the Book of Mormon.

    Why is this important at all? Many DNA studies focus on . . . MATERNAL lineage. Any such study cannot prove or disprove a link in this case, since we don’t know the maternal ancestry of those in question.

    FWIW, there are multiple plausibilities for Nephi’s maternal lineage. Judah, obviously is one, but so is Ephraim (Lehi’s) or Manasseh (Ishmael’s) or any other Israeli tribe or Egyptian (since Lehi apparently was fluent) or any other Middle Eastern affiliation (since Lehi appears to have been a traveling merchant or something similar) or, or, or ad infinitum. Also, if you read the Biblical account, it is obvious that Ephraim’s children’s maternal line was not Hebrew – further compounding the issue.

    All we have in the Introduction is “principal ancestors” or “among the ancestors” – neither of which *must* mean dominant DNA. Frankly, in this particular discussion, both of you are WAY over your head if you don’t recognize the validity of what Seth said. You can disagree with whatever conclusion he reaches, but the list is legitimate.

    Comment by Ray — November 17, 2007 @ 4:38 am |Reply

  103. I agree with CoventryRM, the Church has slowly acquiesced on the the origin of the native American Indians, thus changing the wording in the intro to the BOM. No need to defend this anymore…

    Comment by SkiUtah — November 17, 2007 @ 4:56 am |Reply

  104. “Why are you still making the DNA arguments the CHurch just conceeded. So you don’t have to argue that anymore.”

    Actually, if you’d actually read the Church statement without straining to hear what you want to hear, you’d realize they didn’t concede anything. They still hold that American Indians descend from Lamanites. I don’t really give a flying leap what past LDS authorities have said on the issue. I’m talking about the text of the Book of Mormon which I do hold to be an overall true record of things that did happen and things God did say. The TEXT, not the things people have SAID about it.

    The above eight points show why this is still possible in spite of the recent noise being made over the DNA studies. I’ve encountered plenty of individuals who have left the Church and use the DNA thing as their reason for it. I think the above pretty-much discredits that particular approach.

    “Don’t start a debate based on the nonsense contained in your 8 points. Give me a friggin break.”

    If you don’t have a credible argument to make, just say so. In the law we have a saying:

    “When the law is on your side, argue the law. When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When neither are on your side, pound the table.”

    You guys are pounding the table. Nice try. But you’ll have to do better than that.

    Comment by Seth R. — November 17, 2007 @ 5:35 am |Reply

  105. “Actually, if you’d actually read the Church statement without straining to hear what you want to hear, you’d realize they didn’t concede anything. They still hold that American Indians descend from Lamanites. I don’t really give a flying leap what past LDS authorities have said on the issue. I’m talking about the text of the Book of Mormon which I do hold to be an overall true record of things that did happen and things God did say. The TEXT, not the things people have SAID about it.”

    This is the reason why I haven’t entered this silly conversation. Who cares what the introduction says? That ain’t the Book of Mormon. It’s just someone’s opinion of the Book of Mormon. Opinions will change as the culture changes, as the science changes, as the moods change. I actually created my own edition of the scriptures and took out every introduction, every chapter heading, every footnote, every verse summary, all indices, etc. It’s just the standard works without any interpretation, at all. Most people who see them find it interesting, but scary to have to use one’s mind to figure out what it all means, instead of relying on other people’s interpretation.

    Comment by LDS Anarchist — November 17, 2007 @ 6:04 am |Reply

  106. I love you guys but seriously, I made a post special, just for you, to talk about the changes to the intro 🙂

    This post is about pot! 🙂

    Which I’m STILL curious to know why the article is in LDS living, WHY oh why has no one commented on that!!!! 🙂 (Link on comment 6)

    Oh and BR, I do think Seth makes perfect sense 🙂 Sorry

    Comment by steffielynn — November 17, 2007 @ 6:16 am |Reply

  107. Yes, Ma’am. Since I have nothing to contribute to the pot discussion (except a reference to kettles and black pots), I will move back to the correct thread. *sheepish grin as he hangs his head in shame*

    Comment by Ray — November 17, 2007 @ 6:21 am |Reply

  108. Fires up another and looks to see if their are any posts in the correct places!

    Comment by SkiUtah — November 17, 2007 @ 7:32 am |Reply

  109. Well, I have never smoked pot in my life, ever, or done any illegal drugs of any kind.

    As I told my youngest daughter, “you don’t learn anything from riding a good horse. You learn the most from a bad horse behaving badly, and learning to communicate with the bad horse.”

    Comment by SkiUtah — November 17, 2007 @ 7:39 am |Reply

  110. SkiUtah

    That post makes no sense are you sure you don’t smoke a bit of that wacky stuff?

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 17, 2007 @ 7:42 am |Reply

  111. CoventryRM,

    I appreciate your right to your opinion. You are a good person. But I have to agree to disagree.

    I have never done smoked a cigarette in my life, let alone weed, or anything else.

    All I am saying is that the prophets have preached for decades that the north American Indians are lamenites. That is not true anymore. The Church has admitted to this. No need to defend this anymore…

    Comment by SkiUtah — November 17, 2007 @ 7:50 am |Reply

  112. Coventry: I think you already know what I mean.

    Seth: Good summary.

    Steff: To get this thread back on track, I can’t really tell why that article appeared in LDSLiving. When I first read it, I thought the individual it focuses on must be Mormon. After reading it again, there’s no indication of that. Best guess: Drug testing is an important topic for LDS employers. I do a lot of work in that area for various companies, so the article was interesting to me, but the LDS angle is pretty minimal. Slow news day I guess.

    As for the main question you raise, my opinion is that the only reason MJ is currently considered to be verboten for Mormons is because it is illegal. If it were legalized, though, I suspect that the Church would come out against it anyway because of its recreational use.

    Comment by MCQ — November 17, 2007 @ 7:53 am |Reply

  113. I can’t believe I am doing this, but I can’t back away from a challenge.

    1. Lehi didn’t have “Jewish” DNA. He was of the tribe of Ephraim. Ishmael (who accompanied Lehi) was of Manasseh. Not Judah.

    This statement is totally wrong.
    First Ephraim and Manasseh were brothers with Joseph being their father. It is stated that Lehi is a descendant of Joseph, specifically Manasseh, not Ephraim. It is Ishmael who is presumed to be from the tribe of Ephraim. In either case, they are all Israelites. It is Israelite DNA that is being tested for, not Jewish. Get your facts straight.

    2. Lehi was only a “descendant of Ephraim,” which does not mean he had a direct paternal line.

    Lehi was a descendant of Manasseh, not Ephraim, and you and I both know paternal line is implied.

    3. Scholarly consensus is that the events described in the actual text of the Book of Mormon occurred within an area that probably wasn’t much bigger than present-day Alabama. No continent-wide spread of the people.

    There is no scholarly consensus here. This statement is nonsense. If you are referring to FARMS as being scholarly consensus, you are sadly mistaken. Prophets have stated otherwise. Does FARMS trump Prophets? You probably believe in the 2 Cumorah theory as well.

    4. Jewish DNA today is hard to trace even in known and established Jewish communities.

    Not true.
    The xDE marker is found in 98.5% of Ashkenazi Cohanim, 100% of Sephardi Cohanim, 82% of Ashkenazi Israelites, and 85% of Sephardi Israelites. This is just 1 of many markers.

    5. Middle Eastern, and Jewish, DNA as it exists today has been so altered, changed, and mixed from Lehi’s day that it does not present a good comparison for determining if American Indians have any genetic markers from ANCIENT Israelites.

    Couldn’t be farther from the truth.
    Males who share a common patrilineal ancestor (in this case, LEHI) should also share a Y chromosome, diverging only with respect to accumulated mutations. Since Y-chromosomes are passed from father to son, all Lamanite men should have almost identical Y chromosomes

    6. We don’t know what other people the Lamanites (and Nephites) mixed with during the time period described in the Book of Mormon. The mere fact that the highly condensed and abridged record that makes up our present Book of Mormon doesn’t mention it does not mean it didn’t happen.

    Now you are making stuff up. Stick to what we know.

    7. We don’t know who the Lamanites mixed with after the end of the Book of Mormon narrative.

    This subjective point is mute. The D&C is riddled with statements that the Native Americans were Lamanites and that the purpose of the BofM was to bring the seed of Lehi back to Christ.

    8. It is a common consensus among non-Mormon scholars of American history that approximately 90% of the American Indian population died from smallpox and other European diseases very shortly after the first Spanish explorers encountered the New World. Entire civilizations vanished before Cortez and Pizzaro ever saw them. This could easily have created a genetic bottleneck that certain strains of genetic markers did not survive.

    Again, this is hogwash. In order to come up with a figure of 90%, you have to know what the population numbers were to begin with. This is completely unknown. There are estimates that put the figure at anywhere from 8 million to 231 million. Depending on which number you use, that 90% fluctuates greatly. There is NO consensus here. There is much debate. Entire cultures vanished before Cortez and Pizzaro, but not entire populations.

    Additional Comments from Ray:

    “Since Lehi appears to have been a traveling merchant…”

    I suppose you say this because he is supposedly educated in the language of the Egyptians.

    1 Nephi 1: 4 – …my father, Lehi, having dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days…

    Doesn’t sound like a wandering man to me.

    …Ephraim’s children’s maternal line was not Hebrew…

    Again this is mute. The Y chromosome does not take into account the maternal line.

    THIS LIST IS BOGUS. NOTHING IS OVER MY HEAD.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 17, 2007 @ 7:53 am |Reply

  114. “All I am saying is that the prophets have preached for decades that the north American Indians are lamenites. That is not true anymore. The Church has admitted to this. No need to defend this anymore…”

    Oops. Wrong again. Go back two spaces.

    Comment by MCQ — November 17, 2007 @ 7:55 am |Reply

  115. “Lehi was only a “descendant of Ephraim,” which does not mean he had a direct paternal line.”

    Whoa, BR, now you switched sides and are making my argument! What happened?

    Comment by MCQ — November 17, 2007 @ 7:57 am |Reply

  116. Sorry Steffie, Seth’s list makes not sense.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 17, 2007 @ 7:59 am |Reply

  117. “Males who share a common patrilineal ancestor (in this case, LEHI) should also share a Y chromosome, diverging only with respect to accumulated mutations. Since Y-chromosomes are passed from father to son, all Lamanite men should have almost identical Y chromosomes ”

    Careful BR, this is where you go wrong. You are assuming way too much.

    Comment by MCQ — November 17, 2007 @ 8:00 am |Reply

  118. No MCQ I don’t …. this is the first blog I have been involved in TBM was being used to describe those on here that were pro or active members, I had to ask someone what it meant, I was told True Believing Mormon. So please don’t dodge the question I think you need to explain what you meant by your comment. “Betray” is a pretty strong word.

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 17, 2007 @ 8:00 am |Reply

  119. “This subjective point is mute.”

    That word is “moot” BR, not “mute.” Do we need to go back to Websters again?

    Comment by MCQ — November 17, 2007 @ 8:01 am |Reply

  120. MCQ,

    I’m not making your argument. I’m listing Seth’s list first, then refuting it.

    Again. Lehi was not a descendant of Ephraim. If you guys don’t even know this, (3 of you have now said this) why should I give anything else you say any credence?

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 17, 2007 @ 8:02 am |Reply

  121. No, the church has let this one go. No need to debate it anymore. Let it go…

    Comment by SkiUtah — November 17, 2007 @ 8:02 am |Reply

  122. moot vs mute?

    Give me a break !

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 17, 2007 @ 8:03 am |Reply

  123. “The D&C is riddled with statements that the Native Americans were Lamanites and that the purpose of the BofM was to bring the seed of Lehi back to Christ.”

    You are correct. That is th Church’s position. Your position is that the Church has been proved wrong by DNA testing and that the intro change proves it. You are wrong.

    Comment by MCQ — November 17, 2007 @ 8:03 am |Reply

  124. MCQ,

    I’m not assuming anything. Look it up. Do some real research. Don’t believe the BIASED nonsense that comes from FARMS.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 17, 2007 @ 8:05 am |Reply

  125. MCQ,

    You should have said, “…the Church has been proven…” not …proved…

    See how stupid it is to point out things like this?

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 17, 2007 @ 8:07 am |Reply

  126. Back to original point, maybe it should be called the “most corrected book ever”…

    Comment by SkiUtah — November 17, 2007 @ 8:10 am |Reply

  127. “We don’t know who the Lamanites mixed with after the end of the Book of Mormon narrative.”

    This statement by Seth is 100% correct and explains much of why we don’t find Isrealite DNA in modern Native Americans. I will go even further: we don’t know whether the Lamenite people intermarried with other groups who were in the new world at or near the time Lehi arrived. If such groups existed, there could have been an almost immediate dilution. The point is that the words “Lamenite” and “seed” do not imply a pure genetic strain or anything close to it.

    Comment by MCQ — November 17, 2007 @ 8:10 am |Reply

  128. “Back to original point, maybe it should be called the “most corrected book ever”…”

    That is the most repeated joke ever. If you can’t even come up with new material, you don’t make the cut.

    Comment by MCQ — November 17, 2007 @ 8:11 am |Reply

  129. MCQ,

    I never said that the intro change proves that DNA testing proves that Amerindians are not Lamanites.

    I said that the intro change proves the LDS church is reversing course on thier teachings that the Amerindians are Lamanites.

    I still stand by this statement.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 17, 2007 @ 8:11 am |Reply

  130. Since we are ripping on people for syntax error I think I should point out it is not Lamenite but Lamanite but either one shows up as a misspelled word in word check because they don’t exist!

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 17, 2007 @ 8:13 am |Reply

  131. “Amerindians” what the heck is that?

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 17, 2007 @ 8:14 am |Reply

  132. “Now you are making stuff up. Stick to what we know.”

    Coming from you, BR, that is rich irony. The whole point of your argument is to suggest that we “know” from DNA testing that Native Americans cannot have descended from Lehi. That is simply not true. Sorry to disappoint you. If you want scientific proof to back up your anti-mormon stance, you’ll just have to keep waiting.

    Comment by MCQ — November 17, 2007 @ 8:15 am |Reply

  133. Okay, sorry. The book of Morerros may be more original…

    Comment by SkiUtah — November 17, 2007 @ 8:15 am |Reply

  134. Sorry BR couldn’t help it please forgive me 🙂

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 17, 2007 @ 8:15 am |Reply

  135. Steff: I think SkiUtah is drunk.

    Comment by MCQ — November 17, 2007 @ 8:15 am |Reply

  136. MCQ,

    Seth’s statement is not 100% correct.

    He says we don’t know who the Lamanites mixed with after the BofM narrative.

    That is only true if the BofM narrative is true.
    If the BofM narrative is not true, then we know exactly who they mixed with…no one, because it was all made up.

    Arguing this point is mute…er moot.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 17, 2007 @ 8:16 am |Reply

  137. “I said that the intro change proves the LDS church is reversing course on thier teachings that the Amerindians are Lamanites.”

    Well, is that all? Let’s let the Church speak for itself on that shall we?

    Comment by MCQ — November 17, 2007 @ 8:16 am |Reply

  138. They have. Haven’t you noticed the change in the intro?

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 17, 2007 @ 8:18 am |Reply

  139. I agree SkiUtah must be drunk

    Oh my I agreed with MCQ can I ever be forgiven!

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 17, 2007 @ 8:18 am |Reply

  140. Amerindian is a term for American Indian. I did not coin this term. It is actually a real term.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 17, 2007 @ 8:19 am |Reply

  141. I think Ski might have altered states as well.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 17, 2007 @ 8:19 am |Reply

  142. dang I thought I found another error 😦

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 17, 2007 @ 8:19 am |Reply

  143. “If the BofM narrative is not true, then we know exactly who they mixed with…no one, because it was all made up.”

    Wow, ok, BR. I guess we’re done talking. I thought you were attempting to prove something here by reference to the LDS scriptures. It’s hard to make a point to Mormons if your whole argument starts with the presumpton that it’s all fiction. I guess we’ve just been wasting our time.

    Comment by MCQ — November 17, 2007 @ 8:20 am |Reply

  144. BR

    What are you still doing up at this hour?

    Guess MCQ is done with all this.

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 17, 2007 @ 8:23 am |Reply

  145. Hmm. You win. I’m just an evil person with nothing to contribute.

    Comment by SkiUtah — November 17, 2007 @ 8:23 am |Reply

  146. “but either one shows up as a misspelled word in word check because they don’t exist!”

    So, you are using your spell checker to determine what is real and what is not? No offense Coventry, but you might want to upgrade to at least Wikipedia:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamanites

    Comment by MCQ — November 17, 2007 @ 8:24 am |Reply

  147. I begged Seth not to start this debate, then Ray had to step in. Now MCQ. I’m not the one that initiated this, and am on record that I did not want to participate.

    But when blatant falsehoods are stated repeatedly by people that Steffie (this is her blog) trusts, solely because they are LDS, I had to step in.

    Steffie,

    You need to stop believing everything any LDS person states. This list is rubbish. It is full of what ifs, maybes and stuff that is just wrong.

    I don’t have an anti-mormon agenda. I have a pro-truth agenda. I could care less what religion you guys want to practice. Just don’t propagate lies in the process.

    Steffie,

    I have never lied to you.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 17, 2007 @ 8:25 am |Reply

  148. nope just the word one. It is cool that you respond to levity

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 17, 2007 @ 8:26 am |Reply

  149. SkiUtah: C’mon, don’t call yourself evil, that’s not fair. The reason you have nothing to contribute is not because you’re evil, it’s because you’re ignorant, and maybe a little impaired. Don’t hold it against yourself, though.

    Comment by MCQ — November 17, 2007 @ 8:26 am |Reply

  150. MCQ,

    It is no secret that I think the BofM is fiction, but I gave 2 possibilities. I did not state which one was known to be true. I just happen to believe the second one.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 17, 2007 @ 8:28 am |Reply

  151. hmm. You have no idea. but thanks.

    Comment by SkiUtah — November 17, 2007 @ 8:28 am |Reply

  152. BR, please stop, I’m gonna bust out crying. I am willing to believe that you have never lied to Steff, intentionally.

    Comment by MCQ — November 17, 2007 @ 8:29 am |Reply

  153. MCQ,

    Kiss my A**

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 17, 2007 @ 8:31 am |Reply

  154. Sorry Steffie, I’ll take whatever punishment you mete out, but MCQ can still kiss my a**.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 17, 2007 @ 8:33 am |Reply

  155. so are you all marginalizing me as a drunk or a weed smoke (original topic)r? Please advise, I’ll drop out. thanks.

    Comment by SkiUtah — November 17, 2007 @ 8:34 am |Reply

  156. Following Steffie’s request, I am posting my final comment on the correct thread.

    Good night.

    Comment by Ray — November 17, 2007 @ 8:35 am |Reply

  157. BR:

    Again, this is hogwash. In order to come up with a figure of 90%, you have to know what the population numbers were to begin with. This is completely unknown. There are estimates that put the figure at anywhere from 8 million to 231 million. Depending on which number you use, that 90% fluctuates greatly. There is NO consensus here. There is much debate. Entire cultures vanished before Cortez and Pizzaro, but not entire populations.

    I happen to agree with you on this, but it doesn’t change the conclusion: If entire cultures vanished then we don’t have a good DNA cross-section from which to draw a sample. That is an additional explanation for why there might be no isrealite DNA in modern Native Americans.

    It’s also important to note that we have no idea exactly what the DNA map of Lehi, Zoram and Ishmael may have been. We’re just guessing.

    Comment by MCQ — November 17, 2007 @ 8:36 am |Reply

  158. BR, I love you too.

    Comment by MCQ — November 17, 2007 @ 8:36 am |Reply

  159. I still and curious about the Betray comment if you and BR are done now

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 17, 2007 @ 8:39 am |Reply

  160. Missed this earlier, BR:

    “They have. Haven’t you noticed the change in the intro?”

    Ha, I assume you’re joking, but just in case you’re not:

    The intro change is not a retraction of the idea that Native Americans are Lamenites. It’s actually an affirmation of that idea (Hint: it still says “among the ancestors” remember?).

    It’s a retraction (long overdue, in my opinion) of the idea that the Book of Mormon peoples are the “principal ancestors” of modern Native Americans. The fact is, we don’t know how much of Lehi’s DNA is in modern Native Americans. It may be so small as to be undetectable by today’s tests. But it really doesn’t matter, because he Book of Mormon is not making representations about genetics, it’s a spiritual narrative.

    Comment by MCQ — November 17, 2007 @ 8:48 am |Reply

  161. I’m done.

    Steffie is gonna kill me.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 17, 2007 @ 8:50 am |Reply

  162. Actually that was a joke, but it had a hidden agenda.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 17, 2007 @ 8:52 am |Reply

  163. So there you go Spiritual – Fictional

    Tomatoe – Tomatoe

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 17, 2007 @ 8:54 am |Reply

  164. Ok, Coventry, here’s the deal (assuming you’re not just having me on):

    I like you, despite our differences, and the fact that you use “TBM” to refer to Mormons was, I thought, a tip off that you have been hanging out on ex-mormon or anti-mormon sites. Those sites are the only places, generally speaking, where you hear certain terms like TBM. Despite the fact that TBM sounds vaguely complimentary, it is actually a bit sarcastic and dismissive, in most usage. Mormons don’t generally use it.

    There. That’s all I meant. Maybe I was wrong about you, and if so, I apologize.

    Comment by MCQ — November 17, 2007 @ 8:54 am |Reply

  165. Ok, MCQ,

    Let’s shake hands and go home.
    Maybe that will keep Steffie from killing me.
    I realize that is no incentive for you.

    Your bust out crying comment really ticked me off.
    Maybe because it is so late.

    Anyway, let’s put it behind us.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 17, 2007 @ 9:01 am |Reply

  166. “You should have said, “…the Church has been proven…” not …proved…”

    Actually, I think you’re wrong about his too. I’ll check it. If you’re wrong even when you try to correct my grammar, then I think you owe me something. Shall we say root beer floats at Hires? Hey, maybe you could buy me a polish dog at the Utah game tomorrow! I hereby predict the Utes will win! Ok, sorry, threadjack.

    Comment by MCQ — November 17, 2007 @ 9:03 am |Reply

  167. I had never heard of TBM before I had logged on to various websites. So I don’t think it is much different from asking my 15 year old daughter what POS means? Parent over shoulder or piece of sh** (olden days).

    So what does TBM mean?

    Comment by SkiUtah — November 17, 2007 @ 9:05 am |Reply

  168. Ok, big guy. Sorry if I riled you. See you another time.

    Comment by MCQ — November 17, 2007 @ 9:05 am |Reply

  169. I live in UT County. I’m a BYU fan and hope Utah loses.
    Not really, I am a BYU fan, but I route (or is it root) I’m gonna say rute for the Utes when they are not playing BYU.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 17, 2007 @ 9:08 am |Reply

  170. SkiUtah: True Believing Mormon.

    I guess we should probably have an online dictionary. For a while BCC had a thing going on where, if you put your cursor on an abbreviated term, it would give you the full meaning. It was really cool, but they stopped doing it. Don’t know why.

    Comment by MCQ — November 17, 2007 @ 9:09 am |Reply

  171. ok. got it. thanks.

    Comment by SkiUtah — November 17, 2007 @ 9:12 am |Reply

  172. BR, I’m the same way in reverse. My Dad’s in the Cougar Club but he’s on a mission so I’ll be using his tickets at the BYU/Utah game to route/root/rute for the Utes. Maybe we can hook up at that game. I’ll be the guy with the giant U flag sitting in a sea of blue.

    Comment by MCQ — November 17, 2007 @ 9:12 am |Reply

  173. I don’t have tickets. I’ll be the guy in front of the TV.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 17, 2007 @ 9:13 am |Reply

  174. CoventryRM, are your questions answered? just curious?

    I have been labled as a drunk. So don’t feel like you have to respond…

    Comment by SkiUtah — November 17, 2007 @ 9:15 am |Reply

  175. Ski, your comments were a little up there for awhile.
    You seem to be coming back down now.
    Sorry.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 17, 2007 @ 9:16 am |Reply

  176. MCQ

    thanks that was fair

    This is the only blog I have really been on.

    I was a very active mormon for many years, return missionary etc.

    most of my family still are including two of my children.

    Since I had been filling most my time researching and reading topics that had nothing to do with Mormonism for the last few years. I felt I was out of touch with the current lines of reason used by the Members, I have a son on a mission in Russia and was curious as to what was being debated and talked about.

    So I am here. growing and learning, and when I see appropriate sharing.

    Like I said before I have hope for you as you have hope for me 🙂

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 17, 2007 @ 9:17 am |Reply

  177. CoventryRM,

    Hmm. Respect.

    Comment by SkiUtah — November 17, 2007 @ 9:20 am |Reply

  178. wow, I guess it got a little heated in here, but reading the comments they are actually a little funny! I think the three of you, (coventry, MCQ, and BR) are so much a like. A bit sarcastic, but passionate about your personal beliefs. You are butting heads, and at the end you want to shake hands and have a rootbeer! I love it! 🙂

    Comment by steffielynn — November 17, 2007 @ 3:23 pm |Reply

  179. Ski Utah,

    Your comments were a little confusing at first, I don’t know what your position is, ex mormon maybe?

    *****So how late were you guys up? And ummm I think I should be invited out for rootbeer too, i mean this is MY blog 🙂 (i’m a little hurt!)

    Oh one more thing, MCQ about the LDS living article in comment 6… I looked for a reference to him being LDS as well, that’s why I’m so confused. Since it is (sorta) legal in Cali do mormons (who are prescribed marijuana) use it? I agree the church would say HECK NO to recreational pot. That’s a no brainer. I’m just talking about for sick people. And by the article I’m thinking they already say, prescribed is OK

    Oh ya, BR be nice 🙂

    Comment by steffielynn — November 17, 2007 @ 3:37 pm |Reply

  180. Switch to Firefox as your web browser. Much more secure than Internet Explorer, and the latest version comes with a built-in spell checker. Anything you type on the internet will be spell-checked.

    It still won’t help with the Lamenite problem though.

    Comment by Seth R. — November 17, 2007 @ 3:51 pm |Reply

  181. Steffie

    Now look whay you have started ! 🙂

    Comment by elder joseph — November 17, 2007 @ 4:03 pm |Reply

  182. TBM

    “True believing Mormon” works but I think it is actually supposed to be True BLUE Mormon, that’s how I read it when ever I see it, it flows so nicely. And it IS a total compliment! read this!

    ** “In late 1857, the Church was under attack in the press, and a large army was marching toward Utah to occupy the Mormon settlements. It was during this time that another famous story occurred in his life. Joseph F. was making his way back to Utah. One evening, he was away from the camp looking for firewood when a group of drunken men rode into the camp on horseback, cursing and looking for Mormons to kill. Unaware of what waited for him in camp, Joseph F. headed back with an arm full of wood. While still a distance off, Joseph F. soon realized there was a problem. He recalled: “Why should I run from these fellows?” Feeling a bit emboldened, he marched back into camp and became the first to meet the armed group of hostile men. As he was depositing the recently acquired firewood, one of the leaders of the group, still holding a gun, came toward Joseph F. cursing and declaring in drunken speech that he was duty bound to exterminate any Mormon he found. The inebriated scoundrel shouted, “Are you a Mormon?” Without a moment of hesitation and looking the ruffian in the eye, Joseph F. Smith boldly answered, “Yes, siree; dyed in the wool; true blue, through and through.”

    The answer was given boldly and without any sign of fear, which completely disarmed the belligerent man, and in his bewilderment, he grasped the missionary by the hand and said: “Well, you are the ______ ______ pleasantest man I ever met! Shake, young fellow, I am glad to see a man that stands up for his convictions.”

    Cool story huh 🙂

    Comment by steffielynn — November 17, 2007 @ 4:16 pm |Reply

  183. Steff:

    “I’m just talking about for sick people. And by the article I’m thinking they already say, prescribed is OK”

    I don’t know the Church’s position on “prescribed” pot. As the article says, pot is not actually a prescription drug (as that term is defined by the FDA). What California does is allow people to possess it if they have a “recommendation” from a doctor for a valid purpose. That doesn’t affect federal law, so technically you can still be busted by the feds.

    What all that means for the Church’s position, I don’t know, but I suspect that the Church would not approve.

    Comment by MCQ — November 17, 2007 @ 10:33 pm |Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: