Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
So in cases where something probably shouldn't interpreted literally in light of more modern knowledge / values, re-interpreting it isn't that big a deal?
Just trying to compare that to the very strict religious upbringing I had where if something (anything) said one thing and the Bible said another, the Bible superceded it.
|
Basically the more recent source (prophet or scripture) trumps the other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
I think historical and genetic evidence pretty much eliminates that possibility though doesn't it? This is what made me think of the question in the first place; I thought the evidence was clearly against this so I'd wondered if the general thoughts of the church populace changed with the change in information.
|
This is an interesting subject. No one can deny the DNA evidence showing that the Native Indians and the people of the Pacific Islands actually do not have Israel DNA. This is a confusing matter for me as well. Very troubling actually as I have studied the related science in university. That being said, the response from the Church has been subtle. The introduction to the Book of Mormon now reads that the people in the Book of Mormon were among the inhabitants of America. Implied is the fact that the Book of Mormon people's DNA became so mixed with the other inhabitants that you can't trace it.
I'm waiting for a better explanation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
I know one of the major criticisms levied against Mormonism when I was young by the preachers was how the beliefs had changed over the years whereas Christianity hadn't, so much more apparent since Mormonism is young. To them change was bad, even then I didn't really agree.
(Yes our preachers went out of their way to preach against Mormonism.. they had a whole series in youth and young adults on cults, Mormons were at the very top.)
|
Oh, all churches have evolved over time. Hard to argue with that in my opinion.