Jump to content

Book Of Mormon's Intro Changed


helix

Recommended Posts

From the SL Trib, http://www.sltrib.com/ci_7403990. The article is not too bad for the SL Trib. Our own Kevin Barney also is quoted as well.

The word change is welcomed by me. While the introduction is not scripture, I am happy to see that the word "principal" has been replaced, so that the phrase reads "and they are among the ancestors of the American Indian".

God is currently revealing many plain and precious truths. He is correcting our misunderstanding of the story of the inhabitants of this continent. We were under the false assumption that Lamanites were pure descendants of Lehi, when in actuality there were other people previously living on the Americas.

I thank the Lord for our living Prophet who guides us in these Latter Days.

Link to comment

I wonder what this will do to the DNA issue? Either everyone will just shut their yaps or we'll be bombarded by accusations that we're revising our inspired heritage. While I hope for option A, the dogmatism of our critics makes me sure that it will be option B.

Link to comment

God is currently revealing many plain and precious truths. He is correcting our misunderstanding of the story of the inhabitants of this continent. We were under the false assumption that Lamanites were pure descendants of Lehi, when in actuality there were other people previously living on the Americas.

I thank the Lord for our living Prophet who guides us in these Latter Days.

I feel the same way.

Link to comment

God is currently revealing many plain and precious truths. He is correcting our misunderstanding of the story of the inhabitants of this continent. We were under the false assumption that Lamanites were pure descendants of Lehi, when in actuality there were other people previously living on the Americas.

I thank the Lord for our living Prophet who guides us in these Latter Days.

So what about Bruce R. McKonkie? Was he flat wrong when he wrote that introduction?

I remember as a missionary sitting in the MTC listening to a talk about what a terrific resource the different features of the scriptures that went into the 1981 version were. The speaker talked at length about what terrifically righteous and scripturally astute men these were, and how inspired they had been in the process of putting together the current version of the scriptures. I guess that despite all of that, we now are admitting that they messed it up a bit, huh?

While this change attempts to take the wind out of the sails of the DNA argument and a few other historically problematic claims, it spawns a new problem of casting doubt upon how inspired certain of these prophets were.

Link to comment

From the SL Trib, http://www.sltrib.com/ci_7403990. The article is not too bad for the SL Trib. Our own Kevin Barney also is quoted as well.

The word change is welcomed by me. While the introduction is not scripture, I am happy to see that the word "principal" has been replaced, so that the phrase reads "and they are among the ancestors of the American Indian".

Fascinating. Particularly this bit:

The change "takes into account details of Book of Mormon demography which are not known," LDS spokesman Mark Tuttle said Wednesday."

BCSpace has recently asserted, sans evidence, that the Introduction is part of the scriptural canon.

I am curious as to how people who agree with him will reconcile that belief with the Church changing the text to "[take] into account" changing understanding of "Book of Mormon demography."

-Smac

Link to comment

So what about Bruce R. McKonkie? Was he flat wrong when he wrote that introduction?

I remember as a missionary sitting in the MTC listening to a talk about what a terrific resource the different features of the scriptures that went into the 1981 version were. The speaker talked at length about what terrifically righteous and scripturally astute men these were, and how inspired they had been in the process of putting together the current version of the scriptures. I guess that despite all of that, we now are admitting that they messed it up a bit, huh?

While this change attempts to take the wind out of the sails of the DNA argument and a few other historically problematic claims, it spawns a new problem of casting doubt upon how inspired certain of these prophets were.

Bruce R. McConkie may have misunderstood the truth. Without divine revelation, many are lead astray. I believe this is a sign that we are being corrected in our misunderstanding.

Link to comment

So what about Bruce R. McKonkie? Was he flat wrong when he wrote that introduction?

I remember as a missionary sitting in the MTC listening to a talk about what a terrific resource the different features of the scriptures that went into the 1981 version were. The speaker talked at length about what terrifically righteous and scripturally astute men these were, and how inspired they had been in the process of putting together the current version of the scriptures. I guess that despite all of that, we now are admitting that they messed it up a bit, huh?

While this change attempts to take the wind out of the sails of the DNA argument and a few other historically problematic claims, it spawns a new problem of casting doubt upon how inspired certain of these prophets were.

Or it casts doubt on the ability of certain people to study something out, and ask God for knowledge.

Link to comment

Bruce R. McConkie may have misunderstood the truth. Without divine revelation, many are lead astray. I believe this is a sign that we are being corrected in our misunderstanding.

We may all remember when the introduction was corrected in D&C 132, to reveal our increased knowledge pertaining to when the revelation about plural marriage was actually given to our Prophet Joseph Smith. We often see these corrections within the Church.

Again a great example of a living Prophet and not relying upon the false interpretations that can creep into our doctrine.

Link to comment

From the SL Trib, http://www.sltrib.com/ci_7403990. The article is not too bad for the SL Trib. Our own Kevin Barney also is quoted as well.

The word change is welcomed by me. While the introduction is not scripture, I am happy to see that the word "principal" has been replaced, so that the phrase reads "and they are among the ancestors of the American Indian".

Often people think that the LDS Church is totally non-flexible in is teachings-- this is evidence that this is not the case.

The statement in its original 'principal' wording was not scripture in a technical sense-- but it was once part of the LDS claim at one time. This means that some of what the LDS claimed about their beliefs has changed from the original claim in some ways. The significance of the change is up for evaluation and examination.

Personally I do not think that even if the BoM had many actual demonstrated

historical connections in ancient America that the Utah/SLC Church would have a stronger claim to divinity. In the long run people who want to attack Joseph Smith and LDS founders calling them hoaxers are the ones who try to claim the BoM is a fraud.

The Book of Mormon plates claimed to be an interrelated and abridged record of a previously written record- the modern text claims to be an inspired interpretation of that secondary record. This means it was never intended to be able to be judged as an original ancient artifact nor even a secondary reflection of an artifact. The Book of Mormon is at least tertiary in its proximity to the actual historical places and events. Due to its own claims about itself it is difficult to scrutinize . One should take all of this into account when making a judgment about the LDS claim about the BoM as a source of truth. It appears that various Churches within the Latter-day movement have claimed things about the BoM that the BoM does not claim about itself. Also just because one BoM book with in the volume could be worthy of being worthy of being called â??scriptureâ?? does not mean all of them could.

What if the Golden Plates were found and shown to be historical, readable by scholarsâ??yet interpreted differently. Also many sects that are very cult like use the Bibleâ??but just because they hold the Bible as true does not automatically make that sect true.

Personally I think that some of the critics who what to dismiss the BoM because of some criteria of being not true scripture should examine it contents anyway.

Personally I do not hold the BoM to be â??scriptureâ?? as the New Testament. But also I think that certain NT books are more valuable for certain things than others. Likewise certain NT books that are less valuable for one thing are of very high value for others.

I think that critics in the world of anti-Mormonism are generally missing the point about the BoM. I also think that LDS people in many ways are missing certain points of value about the volume- though in some ways they apply much of it into the patterns of their religious lives. To me the Book of Mormon is of value when considering how Mormons structure and orientate their lives in relation to written sacred writings, and personal revelation. Mormons do not use the BoM like Evangelicals use the Bible in every respect. Mormons do not view the BoM in the same way Evangelicals view the Bible. The BoM contains something that even if Evangelicals thought it as scripture would not seeâ??but Mormons use it daily. This is what is most interesting to me and of a certain kind of valuable about the volume. And I think this is why the BoM was written in the first place. I believe if the BoM was really understood-- that both Evangelicals and Mormons would benefit and learn from each other.

your ol'e Hick

Link to comment

WEll since the intro was an addition to the BoM, haveing to change it to be more correct isnt bad at all. I would have serious issues if it were actually in 1st nephi or something.

Link to comment

As a native American, I find this change even more racially offensive.......it's the major reason why I have such a burning hatred of mormonism. I look forward to the day when this cult theology is in the dust bin of history....

What ever dude. Offensive is in the eye of the beholder, I see nothing offensive about it. Why dont you go fly a kite?

I seem to recall Christ claiming that you should hold on to a burning hatred too.

Link to comment

As a native American, I find this change even more racially offensive.......it's the major reason why I have such a burning hatred of mormonism. I look forward to the day when this cult theology is in the dust bin of history....

angry_baby_head.jpg

By the way, it seems the Trib is paying attention to our message board.

Link to comment

God is currently revealing many plain and precious truths. He is correcting our misunderstanding of the story of the inhabitants of this continent. We were under the false assumption that Lamanites were pure descendants of Lehi, when in actuality there were other people previously living on the Americas.

I thank the Lord for our living Prophet who guides us in these Latter Days.

The "Lehi is the progenitor of every indigenous person from Alaska to Cape Horn" meme has never been a universally-accepted assumption. And make no mistake, it is an "assumption."

Matthew Roper wrote an excellent paper outlining the historical development of an alternative explanation of demography for The Book of Mormon. This alternative seems to have become more widely accepted as we learn more about the demographic history of the Americas.

Here's the article: LIMITED GEOGRAPHY AND THE BOOK OF MORMON: HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS AND EARLY INTERPRETATIONS.

-Smac

Link to comment
I wonder what this will do to the DNA issue? Either everyone will just shut their yaps or we'll be bombarded by accusations that we're revising our inspired heritage. While I hope for option A, the dogmatism of our critics makes me sure that it will be option B.

Exactly. Because "principal" also means "most important", it is not a stumbling block in the DNA issue. So now instead of debating A, we now have to debate A and B. For example....

Or it casts doubt on the ability of certain people to study something out, and ask God for knowledge.

More likely it shows that one did not think it was necessary.

From the SL Trib, http://www.sltrib.com/ci_7403990. The article is not too bad for the SL Trib. Our own Kevin Barney also is quoted as well.

The word change is welcomed by me. While the introduction is not scripture, I am happy to see that the word "principal" has been replaced, so that the phrase reads "and they are among the ancestors of the American Indian".

Fascinating. Particularly this bit: The change "takes into account details of Book of Mormon demography which are not known," LDS spokesman Mark Tuttle said Wednesday."

Barney does not officially represent the Church.

BCSpace has recently asserted.....that the Introduction is part of the scriptural canon.

He still does and has provided far stronger evidence for than any of you have against. What I never said is that canon can't change and I even mentioned that in that thread as well.

Link to comment

Bruce R. McConkie may have misunderstood the truth. Without divine revelation, many are lead astray. I believe this is a sign that we are being corrected in our misunderstanding.

What if, purely hypothetically speaking, another 25 years from now new DNA evidence or other evidence shows a very high probability Semitic peoples actually were the primary ancestors of the indigenous people of America. Would they then put that wording back in? Would that change how you think about how inspired Bruce R. McKonkie was in 1981? Would it change what you think about how inspired this current revision is?

Link to comment

As a native American, I find this change even more racially offensive.......it's the major reason why I have such a burning hatred of mormonism. I look forward to the day when this cult theology is in the dust bin of history....

If you have that much hate you have no business here. Goodbye.

Link to comment

While this change attempts to take the wind out of the sails of the DNA argument and a few other historically problematic claims, it spawns a new problem of casting doubt upon how inspired certain of these prophets were.

Infallibility by any other name would be just as wrong.

Note 1: Principal doesn't and hasn't ever meant "sole." "Flat wrong" is a hostile and extreme reading.

Note 2: McConkie himself thought there were others in the land. (I believe I learned this from one of his biographies, probably the Dennis Horne volume, but I could be wrong as to the source.)

Note 3: McConkie himself has pointed out that the things that appeared in the 1979/1981 edition of the scriptures were not to be taken as official or revealed positions or statements. See Sermons and Writings of Bruce R. McConkie, 289-90.

Note 4: McConkie himself never claimed infallibility. Quite the opposite. Two quick examples - his talk "Are the General Authorities Human?" (an emphatic yes) and this statement from MD under Prophets. "With all their inspiration and greatness, prophets are yet mortal men with imperfections common to mankind in general. They have their opinions and prejudices and are left to work out their own problems without inspiration in many instances."

Link to comment

What if, purely hypothetically speaking, another 25 years from now new DNA evidence or other evidence shows a very high probability Semitic peoples actually were the primary ancestors of the indigenous people of America. Would they then put that wording back in? Would that change how you think about how inspired Bruce R. McKonkie was in 1981? Would it change what you think about how inspired this current revision is?

Line upon line, precept upon precept. Our understanding of God continues to change. This is precisely WHY we need a living Prophet. So I have no doubt that there are many things yet to be revealed!

If you don't believe in continuing revelation, how can you believe in the Church?

Link to comment

I wonder what this will do to the DNA issue?

It will undermine much of the critics' arguments. Southerton and Murphy both hung their hats on the "principal ancestors" language in the Introduction and commonly-held (but not authoritative) beliefs pertaining thereto. See, for example, what Southerton says here:

The Book of Mormon claims in its introduction that the Book of Mormon people (the Lamanites) "are the principal ancestors of the American Indians."

Note that he is asserting that "The Book of Mormon claims" this, when in fact it is the extra-canonical 1981 Introduction that he is quoting.

A wee sleight of hand, I think.

More (same link):

Most LDS adherents believe, and all the LDS prophets have taught, that Israelites are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.

I readily admit that lots of Latter-day Saints harbor such sentiments, but I reject the assertion that "all the LDS prophets have taught" this. That just ain't so.

More (same link):

In 600 BC there were probably several million American Indians living in the Americas. If a small group of Israelites, say less than thirty, entered such a massive native population, it would be very hard to detect their genes today.

This is quite correct. Note, however, Southerton's immediate caveat:

However, such a scenario does not square with what the Book of Mormon plainly states and with what the prophets have taught for 175 years.

Again, Southerton is characterizing the Introduction as part of The Book of Mormon text. That's patently false.

Southerton is disregarding what many leaders in the Church have taught and believed relative to the Limited Geography Model (see Roper's article for numerous examples). He is pretending these views do not exist, or that they did not exist until after Southerton and Murphy started their criticisms based on faulty application of DNA data.

Many more examples exist where the "principal ancestors" language from the Introduction is being presented as part of The Book of Mormon text. And that presentation is then followed by criticisms that hinge upon "principal ancestors" being part of the text.

Here:

The Book of Mormon teaches that these Israelites are the principal ancestors of modern-day Native Americans. New discoveries in DNA research currently allow scientists to test this historical claim.

Here:

The genetic challenge centers on the claims of the Book of Mormon that the Lamanites, at least partly descended from Lehi, are a "remnant of the House of Israel" and the "principal ancestors of the American Indians", as is stated on the 1981 edition's introduction.

Here:

There are two ideas suggested by the Book of Mormon that can be tested genetically. One is that the Book of Mormon people were the principal ancestors of Native Americans in North and/or South America and the Pacific islands. While this claim is strongly implied by the Book of Mormon itself, is stated directly in the introduction to the book...

Here:

The genetic testing on Native Americans would have revealed Near Eastern DNA, which would have included all Semitic peoplesâ??Jews, Israelites, even Arabs. If the â??principal ancestors of the Native Americansâ? were truly Lamanites, which according to the Book of Mormon are a remnant of the house of Israel, then there would, by necessity, be at least some surviving Hebrew or Semitic DNA in a statistically significant population sample, yet none has been found.

Here:

The problem for Mormonism is that Mitochondrial DNA supports the view that the principal ancestors of Native Americans were Asiatic people.

Mormon defenders have maintained that only a small percent of American Indians would be descendants of the Lamanites, which would explain why they don't show up in the DNA samples that have been taken. However, the Introduction to their own Book of Mormon claims that "the Lamanites . . . are the principal ancestors of the American Indians," not an insignificant group.

Here:

Principal ancestors is where they really indict themselves. Principal means main ancestor of the american Indians. As far as body to test they do test them, there's hundreds of thousands of Native Americans left, and like 96% of them have Asiatic descent with some African and European from marriage etc.. But here is no Hebrew DNA. And that is a big indictment.

Take a single word out out of the Introduction - which is not part of the scriptural text and was only added in 1981 - and these criticisms all collapse.

Either everyone will just shut their yaps or we'll be bombarded by accusations that we're revising our inspired heritage. While I hope for option A, the dogmatism of our critics makes me sure that it will be option B.

Which is why I never dance when the anti-Mormons are calling the tune.

-Smac

Link to comment

Again, let's go to the dictionary:

1. first or highest in rank, importance, value, etc.; chief; foremost.

etc

–noun

4. a chief or head.

5. the head or director of a school or, esp. in England, a college.

6. a person who takes a leading part in any activity, as a play; chief actor or doer.

7. the first player of a division of instruments in an orchestra (excepting the leader of the first violins).

8. something of principal or chief importance.

+++++++++++++++++

No change was necessary. The "principal violinist", for example, is not duplicated throughout the violin section but is the "highest value", or leading part. Leadership, etc.

Once again the dictionary is a powerful weapon against the antimormons who confuse principal with majority.

Link to comment

As a native American, I find this change even more racially offensive.......

How is the change "racially offensive?"

it's the major reason why I have such a burning hatred of mormonism.

The change was not publicized until today, so how can it be "the major reason...[you] have such a burning hatred of mormonism?"

As far as having a "burning hatred" for an entire religion, I am saddened by that.

I look forward to the day when this cult theology is in the dust bin of history....

How is the change "racially offensive?"

And I am curious how you can be so quick to take offense and yet so free with your expression of hatred toward my faith, deriding it as a "cult" and looking forward to its demise?

-Smac

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...