Book Of Mormon's Intro Changed

[MormonMason]

Mason,

Thanks for the info, I am truly ignorant in this regard. However, your insight doesn't rule out that a DNA change and a skin color change could have occurred at the time of the separation of the Nephites and Lamanites, essentially making them physically closer to Trans-Siberian immigrants (with which the no doubt co-mingled their gene pool). There must have been some genetic change in the Lamanties, or else why would the Lord warn the Nephites not to mix their seed with the Lamanites?

-M

The problem is that I cannot for the life of me see God tweaking mtDNA and y-chDNA in such a way as to make it look more like another population group's mtDNA or y-chDNA. Seriously, what would be the point? There are good mechanisms that are understood to result in entire lines of mtDNA or y-chDNA from disappearing from entire populations. Just a few intermarriages in the right places can completely wipe out mtDNA and y-chDNA lines from families. Yet, they still can be direct descendents of the original progenitors without having their mtDNA or y-chDNA. These two lines of DNA only point to two of your ancestors out of tens of thousands or more. For instance, if you are a male and have had children the entire mtDNA line you had has been obliterated out of existence in your children. Your wife gave that to them, not you. So far as a DNA test on mtDNA is considered, you have vanished without a trace!

If you are a male and have all daughters, you also will have appeared to have vanished without a trace when they test for your y-chDNA--unless they have a rare genetic defect that gives the girls your y chromosome in addition to the two x chromosomes given to them by you and your wife. And then there are such things Founder effect, Genetic Drift, and so on that also could have resulted in elimination of specific mtDNA and y-chDNA lines. This does not make them not descendents of Israel. It only makes it harder to find.

Worse, people forget that there is no such thing as Israeli mtDNA or y-chDNA. Seriously, there is no such thing, never has been and never will be. Not only does Israeli culture allow for multinational adoptions and proselyting, Israelis intermarried with the populations of other lands frequently in even the Bible. And, the mtDNA lines and y-chDNA lines they got came from before they were born. Worse still, the mtDNA lines of the sons of Israel were never passed on! Their wives, none of whom were Israelis to begin with, gave their sons their mtDNA. We are not even certain as to what lines they inherited from where and anyone who says otherwise is either an ignoramus or lying.

The point is, it is a moot point and not worth debating over. What's more, the ancestors of the American Indians are not just one group of people. There is a long history there that genetic populaton studies likely will never tell us. That is the nature of the beast and there is no need for postulating nonsensical hypotheses about switching mtDNA or y-chDNA to hide the Lamanites genetically. Again, what purpose could he have for doing such a thing? I can see switching on or off a few genes to modify one's color but why do it when there are easier ways to do things like intermarriage?

Perhaps you are unaware of an 1831 revelation contained in a letter that encouraged marrying of Native Americans by several already-married brethren so that their descendents would become white and delightsome. Such a revelation does exist. It is not in the Doctrine and Covenants, mind you, but it is the quietly one of the bases for the claim in the Intro to Section 132 that "it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831." It is evident to me that there would be some degree of genetics involved there so why cannot it have happened in the Book of Mormon the same way? Would we want to ignore that possibility because our own interpretive assumptions are being read into the text?

[MormonMason]

[Moriancumer]

The problem is that I cannot for the life of me see God tweaking mtDNA and y-chDNA in such a way as to make it look more like another population group's mtDNA or y-chDNA. Seriously, what would be the point? ...Would we want to ignore that possibility because our own interpretive assumptions are being read into the text?

Mason,

Again, very informative- thank you. I think we're saying the same thing- the Lamanite DNA has been altered through time. Simply stated, you feel that it was done entirely by intermarriage, I suggest only that it could've been done initally by a miracle (ostensibly to make the Lamanites appear less desirable to the Nephites- no that doesn't make me a racist), and compounded by intermarriage. Either way is fine with me, but I still stand by my claim that the Lamanites are the Principal ancestor. If not, then the BoM and D&C are wrong (and we know that not to be the case). Removing "Principal" from the introduction doesn't change that fact. I'll just have to live with it along with my crazy theories.

-M

[SolarPowered]

However, the Lord himself speaking through the Prophet Joseph Smith in the D&C refers to the Native Americans on the Missouri frontier of the 1830s as "Lamanites" on numerous occasions and "Jews" in at least one other place. This leads me to believe that their "Principal" ancestors were of Israel. I'll take his word over DNA test results.

As I have mentioned before, in the 2,400 years from Lehi to Joseph Smith, at 4 generations per century, the Native Americans of Joseph's day have 79,228,162,514,264,337,593,543,950,336 ancestors from the time of Lehi. With the normal diffusion from villiage-to-village as women marry, it is a virtual certainty that at least one of those 79,228,162,514,264,337,593,543,950,336 ancestors was Lehi. Now, one part in 79,228,162,514,264,337,593,543,950,336 of Lehi's DNA isn't going to show up on any test, but they are nonetheless descendants of Lehi, and therefore properly termed "Lamanites."

This isn't hard, folks. It's forth-grade math.

[shipwreak]

Sometimes the Brethren experiment. It's the big stuff that they pray about. Little things like an introduction just are not important enough to warrant spending much time on prayer and confirmation. The introduction was not a revelation or inspired in any way.

I've been studying the Book Of mormon for over four months. Why wasn't a lot of prayer and time put into the introduction? I don't understand why the introduction would be considered "little things" when it sets the credibilty and validity of the Book of mormon.

[structurecop]

I don't understand why the introduction would be considered "little things" when it sets the credibilty and validity of the Book of mormon.

I was under the impression that the text of the Book of Mormon constituted its credibility and validity.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I've been studying the Book Of mormon for over four months. Why wasn't a lot of prayer and time put into the introduction? I don't understand why the introduction would be considered "little things" when it sets the credibilty and validity of the Book of mormon.

I'm sure a lot of thought was put into it. As one BoM author said:

Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.

Mormon 9:31

[MormonMason]

I've been studying the Book Of mormon for over four months. Why wasn't a lot of prayer and time put into the introduction? I don't understand why the introduction would be considered "little things" when it sets the credibilty and validity of the Book of mormon.

Why should it? The introduction was added to the 1981 edition by committee. There was nothing earth-shattering in the introduction. For many years the Book of Mormon did not even have an introduction. The committee thought it would be helpful to have an introduction to aid new readers. They felt uncomfortable with something Bruce R. McConkie wanted in the introduction and Bruce R. McConkie insisted and put it in anyway. The problem was, people were a little less knowledgeable than Bruce R. McConkie and his words are easy to misunderstand in that introduction. It was fine as it was, so long as people understand the meaning intended for the word principal, but it is fine as it now is, too. Only now, the entire argument based upon one word in the introduction has been cut asunder. Plus, it gives the antis something new to go ape-wall over. I love it just for that alone. Nothing entertains me better than an anti getting his drawers in a bunch over nothing and thinking it is something.

[poulsenll]

I've been studying the Book Of mormon for over four months. Why wasn't a lot of prayer and time put into the introduction? I don't understand why the introduction would be considered "little things" when it sets the credibilty and validity of the Book of mormon.

The word used originally said exaxtly what they wanted it to say. The problem was that people could not distiguish between two English words with similar but very different meanings when applied to spiritual concepts. Dont blame the lack of prayer on the writers blame it on the readers.

From my post on the other board.

To modify an old saying "There are none so blind as those who cannot read what is actually written in the standard works of the Church".

The word used in the introduction is principal not principle.

From the introduction to the 1981 edition of the BofM.

"and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians"

From the online Webster's Dictionary of the English language

QUOTE

Main Entry: 1prin

[Thinking]

As I have mentioned before, in the 2,400 years from Lehi to Joseph Smith, at 4 generations per century, the Native Americans of Joseph's day have 79,228,162,514,264,337,593,543,950,336 ancestors from the time of Lehi. With the normal diffusion from village-to-village as women marry, it is a virtual certainty that at least one of those 79,228,162,514,264,337,593,543,950,336 ancestors was Lehi. Now, one part in 79,228,162,514,264,337,593,543,950,336 of Lehi's DNA isn't going to show up on any test, but they are nonetheless descendants of Lehi, and therefore properly termed "Lamanites."

This isn't hard, folks. It's forth-grade math.

Population growth is definitely not 4th grade math [A=Pe^(rt)], so I'm guessing that the 4th grade math which you used to come up with this ridiculously impossible number might not have been math after all.

[cksalmon]

The word used originally said exaxtly what they wanted it to say. The problem was that people could not distiguish between two English words with similar but very different meanings when applied to spiritual concepts. Dont blame the lack of prayer on the writers blame it on the readers.

From my post on the other board.

To modify an old saying "There are none so blind as those who cannot read what is actually written in the standard works of the Church".

The word used in the introduction is principal not principle.

From the introduction to the 1981 edition of the BofM.

"and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians"

From the online Webster's Dictionary of the English language

not

It was not changed in response to DNA findings or to a change in Mormon thought, it was changed because people, including members of the church, could not tell the difference between two English words and did not actually read what was written. It has always meant the most important ancesters, in particular with reference to spiritual blessings. It is through Father Lehi that all descendents of American Indian cultures will be blessed just as through Abraham all the world will be blessed whether they are genetic descendents of Abraham or not.

Larry P

Please bear with me, hear, four this is an issue very deer to my hart.

Do you seriously mean to suggest that the change is due to the purported fact that readers have difficulty distinguishing between the meanings of these two words? Granted, there are numerous misspellings of "principle" for "principal"--even on this thread. But, does that mean that LDS leadership decided to change the wording so that folks wouldn't confuse "principal" ("most important, consequential, or influential") for "principle" ("a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption")?

That seems rather an inconceivable overreaction, if true.

Or, were readers of BoM routinely running around claiming that the Lamanites were the "comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption" of the Native Americans?

I hardly think so. This interpretation of the change seems particularly maladroit to me.

Dont blame the lack of prayer on the writers[;] blame it on the readers.

But, also, don't blame the readers for allegedly reading a "comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption" into "principal."

CFR.

Where are the apparently overwhelming instances of BoM readers thinking that the Lamanites were a "comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption" of the Native Americans, such that a change in wording was necessary to avoid confusion?

This seems rather an explanation of convenience, rather than one of necessity owing to poor readerly skills.

Over and above obvious misspellings of the two homophones in question, I'd like to see the evidence that readers have confused the foundational meaning of these two words such that the change was necessary.

It has always meant the most important ancesters, in particular with reference to spiritual blessings

Then it seems the obvious choice would have been to change "principal" to "the most important" (since that what has always been meant) rather than "among" (which carries no hint of superior importance at all and actually acutely obscures such an understanding).

CKS

[Yavanna]

The committee thought it would be helpful to have an introduction to aid new readers. They felt uncomfortable with something Bruce R. McConkie wanted in the introduction and Bruce R. McConkie insisted and put it in anyway.

Do you have a source for this? I can not just take your word for it that Bruce R. McConkie went behind the prophet's back and inserted something into the introduction and for over 20 years it has been published without someone on this "committee" noticing.

By MormonMason: It's the big stuff that they pray about. Little things like an introduction just are not important enough to warrant spending much time on prayer and confirmation. The introduction was not a revelation or inspired in any way. It was not and is not considered scripture by them.

I agree with shipwreak that anything printed in the BOM, even if it is not cannonized, is done so with thoughtfulness and prayer. I am shocked to read some people feel it would not be done in this matter. Why it wouldn't be done with prayer.

Shoot many LDS pray about what to write in thier letter to the people they visit or home teach or the lessons they teach on Sunday, but that doesn't make their words scripture. Yet they pray and ponder on it to be sure the Lord approves of what they are saying.

And PLEASE if you have a source or something official that says the introduction was not concieved with thought or prayer and just put in to please the people I WANT to read it.

This is a church that puts emphasis on following the spirit, patience, humility, and doing things that are pleasing to the Lord.

Other churches add study notes, introductions, and footnotes to their scriptures and I would be deeply saddened to think they added things to their scriptures without praying about whether the Lord approved the additions. Why would the LDS church do any different?

If you have some inside knowledge from Church Headquarters, please share.

[katherine the great]

As I have mentioned before, in the 2,400 years from Lehi to Joseph Smith, at 4 generations per century, the Native Americans of Joseph's day have 79,228,162,514,264,337,593,543,950,336 ancestors from the time of Lehi. With the normal diffusion from villiage-to-village as women marry, it is a virtual certainty that at least one of those 79,228,162,514,264,337,593,543,950,336 ancestors was Lehi. Now, one part in 79,228,162,514,264,337,593,543,950,336 of Lehi's DNA isn't going to show up on any test, but they are nonetheless descendants of Lehi, and therefore properly termed "Lamanites."

This isn't hard, folks. It's forth-grade math.

Uh...with population estimates of number of people EVER born on the planet (since 50,000 b.c.) ranging from 96,100,000,000 to 106,456,367,669--your numbers seem way, way, way, way, way inflated.

[juliann]

I hardly think so. This interpretation of the change seems particularly maladroit to me.

But, also, don't blame the readers for allegedly reading a "comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption" into "principal."

CFR.

I am actually laughing at this. Disingenuous does not even begin to describe this attempt. Maladroit? That would be when you take the most convenient definition from the dictionary and pretend the one under discussion isn't really there in living black and white print: Principle - 2: a primary source : origin

You are seriously going to claim that no one thought "Lamanites" were the origin of Native Americans? Really? Lame, lame, lame. Not to mention a transparent attempt to pull the covers over your head so the boogyman disappears. Trouble is...the rest of us can read 2: a primary source : origin

[PacMan]

What I really want to know is now that the church has "conceded" the hemispheric model (as if that weren't a strawman at the outset), what in the world will Mr. Southerton do? Can he still be upset for NOT being X-ed for apostasy if what he was saying wasn't whole-sale apostasy?

I wonder if he's re-thinking his adultery. DOH!

PacMan

[cksalmon]

I am actually laughing at this. Disingenuous does not even begin to describe this attempt. Maladroit? That would be when you take the most convenient definition from the dictionary and pretend the one under discussion isn't really there in living black and white print: Principle - 2: a primary source : origin

You are seriously going to claim that no one thought "Lamanites" were the origin of Native Americans? Really? Lame, lame, lame. Not to mention a transparent attempt to pull the covers over your head so the boogyman disappears. Trouble is...the rest of us can read 2: a primary source : origin

Yeah, you're right, Juliann. It is pretty friggin' hilarious. What makes it so especially hilarious is that I quoted the definition about which you're so indignant directly from Larry P! How funny is that?! Will you join me in saying "very?"

Rock on!

You are seriously going to claim that no one thought "Lamanites" were the origin of Native Americans?

No, certainly I wouldn't claim that. After all, that's what LDS leaders actually taught until empirical data started spoiling things. (See Roberts on New World linguistics, for example.)

For reference, "principle" does not function as an adjective in the English language. "Principal" does. (I don't believe you've grasped the significance of that. Larry might.) I know they're hard to keep straight. So hard, in fact, that the LDS leadership decided to change "principal" to "among" just so that, in future, no one else would get confused.

The change had absolutely nothing to do with DNA.

I'm glad we could share a laugh together.

[poulsenll]

Please bear with me, hear, four this is an issue very deer to my hart.

Over and above obvious misspellings of the two homophones in question, I'd like to see the evidence that readers have confused the foundational meaning of these two words such that the change was necessary.

Then it seems the obvious choice would have been to change "principal" to "the most important" (since that what has always been meant) rather than "among" (which carries no hint of superior importance at all and actually acutely obscures such an understanding).

CKS

CKS

Personally, I think the change to "among" was in response to the many criticisms and theories that have abounded because of the difficulty on the part of readers to seperate the meanings of the two words. After all, it is an introduction, not a doctrinal dissertation. My former post was my opinion and does not necesarily reflect the thinkong of those who made the decision to change the word. This thread is a good example of the continuing argument about exactly what was meant by the use of the word Principal.

As I have compared and studied the many proposals for Book of Mormon geography, I am astounded at the times when people concentrate on a single passage and ignore everthing else that is written in the BofM about geography or assume the presence of words that are not in the text.

After some 50 or more years teching and participating in Gospel Doctine classes, I am still amazed at the lack in some members of any desire to implement a personal program of scriptural study and simply come to class waiting for others to spoon feed them.

Forgive my attitude but the uproar over this simple change and the lack of acceptence of our leaders right to do so has upset me as much or more than some of the anti arguments proposed on this board.

Larry P

[cksalmon]

Forgive my attitude but the uproar over this simple change and the lack of acceptence of our leaders right to do so has upset me as much or more than some of the anti arguments proposed on this board.

Larry P

I sensed no "attitude" from you at all, Larry. Rereading my post, I do see some of my own attitude showing unblessedly through, however. Sorry about that.

I certainly have no problem with the change, personally, my ("anti") posts in this thread notwithstanding.

Best to you,

CKS

[juliann]

Yeah, you're right, Juliann. It is pretty friggin' hilarious. What makes it so especially hilarious is that I quoted the definition about which you're so indignant directly from Larry P! How funny is that?! Will you join me in saying "very?"

Rock on!

That is what makes your selective quoting so outrageous. I guess I must be missing something here...where do you think the rest of us got the defintions from? Larry gave all of the definitions...not just the one you cherry picked so you could make it sound as if Mormons were stupid for thinking principle might mean original, which is definition 2...the one you completely ignored.

Larry's dictionary quote:

Main Entry: prin

[juliann]

I certainly have no problem with the change, personally, my ("anti") posts in this thread notwithstanding.

Wow...what more do we need to know about your agenda?

[fox_goku]

I applaud the change. Revelation is this Church always has been as much about revision as vision. Continuing revelation is afterall .... continuing. This principle has been especially true in the D&C.

The change being discussed here is not even scripture, but I do think Mormonism has a unique perspective that scripture, although sacred, is provisional and subject to refinement. Again, that is the "continuing" in continuing revelation, as spoken of in AofF #9.

People may want infallible prophets -- but there is no such thing.

[gitxsanartist]

Vindication at last. Now my extended family won't think I'm such a raving lunatic/apostate:

http://www.salamandersociety.com/dna/

Read:

Loss of Identity - I guess I'm not Lamanite

12/15/2006 by Nathaniel P. Wilkerson

[structurecop]

Vindication at last. Now my extended family won't think I'm such a raving lunatic/apostate:

http://www.salamandersociety.com/dna/

Read:

Loss of Identity - I guess I'm not Lamanite

12/15/2006 by Nathaniel P. Wilkerson

Do you wear a straight face when you post on a page where the next claim is that "Mormonism is anti-semitic"?

[bjw]

I know the antis are going to jump all over this, claiming that we didn't teach that there were others on this continent before. However, if you go back to the Hugh Nibley "Teachings on the Book of Mormon" DVDs you will see that Hugh Nibley was teaching this (that others were present) back in the late 80s/early 90s or whenever that was filmed. When Nibley said it none of the students at the lecture acted bent out of shape, so I assume it was already a widespread idea in the church back then. Interesting.

[Thinking]

I applaud the change. Revelation in this Church always has been as much about revision as vision. Continuing revelation is after all .... continuing. This principle has been especially true in the D&C.

The change being discussed here is not even scripture, but I do think Mormonism has a unique perspective that scripture, although sacred, is provisional and subject to refinement. Again, that is the "continuing" in continuing revelation, as spoken of in AofF #9.

This change was not brought about by revelation. This change was brought about by science.