Book Of Mormon's Intro Changed

[SolarPowered]

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.

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.

The number I stated is in fact the correct number of ancestors that are in a family tree in the 96th generation back. That assumes that there are no duplications. Obviously, the reality is that we don't actually have "family trees", but rather have "family webs"--the braches in the "tree" merge and weave together.

My point is that in 96 generations, with a possibly vanishing small number of exceptions, everyone in the 96th generation is descended from everyone 96 generations before whose line didn't die out in the first few generations. The large number I cited (which, again, is actually the exact number) serves to demonstrate the level of diffusion and criss-crossing that happens in 2,400 years.

Thus, the current Native Americans are without a doubt descendants of Lehi, and are reasonably called "Lamanites." Even if their measurable DNA came from other sources.

[Thinking]

The introduction was added to the 1981 edition by committee.

Committee? Appointed by whom? Are they the Danites?!

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.

I thought that Bruce R. McConkie was an apostle, not the prophet. Don't you think that the prophet would at least be involved in the approval process? Or was McConkie in charge?

Perhaps McConkie was just writing what was believed at the time.

"Not until the revelations of Joseph Smith, bringing forth the Book of Mormon, did any one know of these migrants. It was not known before, but now the question is fully answered. Now the Lamanites number about sixty million; they are in all of the states of America from Tierra del Fuego all the way up to Point Barrows, and they are in nearly all the islands of the sea from Hawaii south to southern New Zealand. The Church is deeply interested in all Lamanites because of these revelations and because of this great Book of Mormon, their history that was written on plates of gold and deposited in the hill. The translation by the Prophet Joseph Smith revealed a running history for one thousand yearsâ??six hundred years before Christ until four hundred after Christâ??a history of these great people who occupied this land for that thousand years. Then for the next fourteen hundred years, they lost much of their high culture. The descendants of this mighty people were called Indians by Columbus in 1492 when he found them here.

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." (Spencer W. Kimball, â??Of Royal Blood,â? Ensign, Jul 1971, 7)

http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menu..._&hideNav=1

[Thinking]

My point is that in 96 generations, with a possibly vanishing small number of exceptions, everyone in the 96th generation is descended from everyone 96 generations before whose line didn't die out in the first few generations. The large number I cited (which, again, is actually the exact number) serves to demonstrate the level of diffusion and criss-crossing that happens in 2,400 years.

Yeah, all those world travelers were hopping from continent to continent and mixing DNA.

[Lachoneus]

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

The change was brought about to end the confusion caused by the inability of many persons to use a dictionary or to understand what science really says on the matter. There was nothing wrong with the original statement.

[Moon Quaker]

I found this talk (don't have the link handy, but you can get it at LDS.org):

"Our Paths Have Met Again", First Presidency Message, President Spencer Kimball (speaking as president, no less...), Ensign, December 1975

It contains numerous quotes and discussions of how the American Indians are the literal decendents of the Lamanites. He even mentions some existing American Indian tribes by name. He also includes Pacific Islanders as "Lamanites".

Clearly, SWK, in his official capacity as "prophet" and "president" believed and preached in a church publication that the American Indians and Pacific Islanders were decended from "lamanites". He doesn't use the words "principle ancestors", but it is clear that is what he believes.

A couple of quotes from that speach, and there were many others:

"For the Lord himself has chosen to call these people Lamanitesâ??all the mixed descendants of Father Lehi, and Ishmael, and Zoram, and Mulek, and others of the Book of Mormon record; all of the literal seed of the Lamanites"

"So, my appeal today is for the Lamanites, all the Lamanites, the Mexicans, the Polynesians, the Indians, to live the commandments of God and prove themselves worthy of this choice land."

I also found numerous D&C mentions of the American Indian tribes as being "Lamanite", which I can provide references for if you wish.

Are the American Indians that existed since Joseph Smiths time Lamanites or not? Clearly, SWK believed they were, and he said thus in an official capacity in an official forum.

Was President Kimball wrong in believing that the American Indians and Pacific Islanders are Lamanite? Are you saying that a prophet, speaking in an official capacity, in an official church publication, regarding a core belief of the mormon religion - - - he was wrong?

Well there's the Lamanite Placement Program of yesteryear; it was known to [anecdotally] cause the skin of Native Americans to become one to two shades lighter than it was before being placed in said program. It seems like it would be safe to assume that such affected persons were the direct descendents of Lehi; don't you think?

[Irondukesteve]

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

Yes vindication indeed....though I am not Indian I still am very happy with this change.

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

hear hear....

The change was brought about to end the confusion caused by the inability of many persons to use a dictionary or to understand what science really says on the matter. There was nothing wrong with the original statement.

I disagree...I believe it was rather misleading.

[Irondukesteve]

Well there's the Lamanite Placement Program of yesteryear; it was known to [anecdotally] cause the skin of Native Americans to become one to two shades lighter than it was before being placed in said program. It seems like it would be safe to assume that such affected persons were the direct descendents of Lehi; don't you think?

Indeed....well remembered and good point.

[Lachoneus]

I disagree...I believe it was rather misleading.

I agree that you disagree. But it was not misleading. Learn to use a dictionary.

[Irondukesteve]

I agree that you disagree. But it was not misleading. Learn to use a dictionary.

Perhaps you could learn to be more patient and less bullheaded.

Principal: Adjective

S: (adj) chief, main, primary, principal, master (most important element) "the chief aim of living"; "the main doors were of solid glass"; "the principal rivers of America"; "the principal example"; "policemen were primary targets"; "the master bedroom"; "a master switch".

And in the words of Christopher Hitcens, "I love Ad hominem "attacks"....it means I have won." lol

[Deborah]

As soon as I heard the promotion for the news "Change in the Book of Mormon" I knew the anti's were going to be all over it. Then I find out that there was no change in the BOM but only in the introduction and it was only a clarification for the sake of all those nit-pickers who find fault with a word. The real introduction in any case was written on the title page:

Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanitesâ??Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentileâ??Written by way of commandment, and also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelationâ??Written and sealed up, and hid up unto the Lord, that they might not be destroyedâ??To come forth by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereofâ??Sealed by the hand of Moroni, and hid up unto the Lord, to come forth in due time by way of the Gentileâ??The interpretation thereof by the gift of God.

It is interesting that the new Introduction language, "among the ancestors of the American Indians" conforms more with the statement of the title page regarding a remnant.

[juliann]

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.

This is one area that I think they can truly claim ignorance. It is a bit surprising considering how they love to nitpick through every old record they can find, actually more than a bit surprising. They are relying on the majority belief, that is undeniable. But that doesn't help their agenda so they must ignore the rest of what is undeniable...it was not the only accetable belief which flies in the face of their bald faced assertion that "science" or "apologists" are coming up with new stuff. They look ridiculous and ignorant.

"We must be careful in the conclusions that we reach. The Book of Mormon teaches the history of three distinct peoples, or two peoples and three different colonies of people, who came from the old world to this continent. It does not tell us that there was no one here before them. It does not tell us that people did not come after. And so if discoveries are made which suggest differences in race origins, it can very easily be accounted for, and reasonably, for we do believe that other people came to this continent." (Ivins, 1929, p. 15) Ivins, Anthony W., LDS Conference Report, April 1929, p. 15.

The more things change the more they stay the same....all the countermopologists have is false prophet Let the proclamations begin.

[why me]

I find this thread amazing. The critics seem to be very English centered. I hope that they realize that foreign editions of the book of mormon do not contain the English introduction. At least this is my understanding. It seems that the introduction that was in the English edition was not included in the foreign editions. Can anyone confirm this?

And if this is the case, it is obvious that the intro was just that...an introduction for the English edition.

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

Actually if foreign editions did not contain the introduction, we can honestly say that the English version was an exception to the rule. No revelation needed or science.

[why me]

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.

Actually the introduction never set any credibility or validity for the book of mormon. What it did do, is to introduce people to the book before they started to read it. Nothing more. It was more in line with an 'explanation'.

And again, if the intro was not in foreign editions, then that would mean that it was just an English edition event.

[why me]

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

Mr. Southerton with exmo help will claim his victory as if he were responsible for the change. And I do think that this is already happening with the exmos who seem to be mentioning his name. Plus Simon has already issued a statement via the email I believe.

[why me]

About the foreign editions it seems that some may have the introduction and some don't. It would be interesting if any of the returned missionaries on this board can comment on their foreign editions of the book of mormon. Is the intro there?

[juliann]

Mr. Southerton with exmo help will claim his victory as if he were responsible for the change. And I do think that this is already happening with the exmos who seem to be mentioning his name. Plus SImon has already issued a statement via the email I believe.

Interesting....when did he take over for Murphy? Is he pulling credentials or something? I think it is obvious that had this not become such a topic of interest no one would have been paying anymore attention than they were before. Why should they? But to try to take personal credit for a doctrinal change rather than a necessary adjustment of one line in an introduction to what has been said many times before hints of delusions of grandeur.

[juliann]

I've been waiting for all of the countermopologist scholarship on that other word, "each designated by the name of its principal author." in "A Brief Explanation About The Book of Mormon" following the Testimony preface in the BOM.

How do they explain the use of this spelling/meaning in another part of the same book? Does it mean something different than it says, too?

[MormonMason]

I find this thread amazing. The critics seem to be very English centered. I hope that they realize that foreign editions of the book of mormon do not contain the English introduction. At least this is my understanding. It seems that the introduction that was in the English edition was not included in the foreign editions. Can anyone confirm this?

And if this is the case, it is obvious that the intro was just that...an introduction for the English edition.

Actually if foreign editions did not contain the introduction, we can honestly say that the English version was an exception to the rule. No revelation needed or science.

Although I do not know about the other language versions for a certainty, my copies of the Spanish, Arabic (although I do not read Arabic, there is an introduction, the paragraphing is the same, and I can use an English-Arabic Dictionary to help there) and Modern Greek translations have it. The Greek Introduction has "and they are the ancestors principally of the Indians of the Americas." That Greek edition, by the way, does not slavishly follow the English text at every turn. The passage in English (1 Nephi 10:9) that says Bethabara has been translated to read "Bethany, across from the Jordan."

[SolarPowered]

Yeah, all those world travelers were hopping from continent to continent and mixing DNA.

I had thought that it was clear from context that I'm referring to the American continents.

[MormonMason]

Committee? Appointed by whom? Are they the Danites?!

Yes. Committee. They were commissioned by the First Presidency of the Church. No, they were not the Danites. Perhaps you should consider adding the word "not" to the front of your username?

I thought that Bruce R. McConkie was an apostle, not the prophet. Don't you think that the prophet would at least be involved in the approval process? Or was McConkie in charge?

Yes, Bruce R. McConkie was an Apostle. Maybe the Prophet approved it and and maybe he didn't except by blanket approval of the labors of the commitee. The Study Aids themselves, however, were not considered to be error-free and accurate in all their parts. The committee consisted of scholars, editors, and publication specialists from Brigham Young University, the Church Educational System and Deseret Book Company (as well as hundreds of students and other members of the Church), and had the overall oversight of three apostles, Thomas S. Monson, Boyd K. Packer and Bruce R. McConkie (replacing Marvin J. Ashton on the commitee).

Ever hear of delegation? They are so extremely busy that it is physically impossible for the First Presidency to oversee personally each and every single aspect of all the projects at Church headquarters. Sometimes the approval consists of an "if it is good enough for you it is good enough for me" blanket approval based upon trust. I nowhere see the First Presidency's signature signed to the approval process and inserted into the scriptures in this case.

In other cases, the abovementioned kind of approach can be seen in the approvals of Church manuals and in approvals of foreign language translations of the Book of Mormon. These translations are in languages the First Presidency does not read in every case (although I am sure they might if God appointed them to the work of translation; but, so far, he hasn't), and as such were prepared and translated by individuals under the oversight of the Scripture Committee of the time.

As you can see in my post above, the Greek translation does not follow the English of the Book of Mormon faithfully in every place. Do you honestly think that the First Presidency approved each and every word in that edition and just did not give a blanket approval? Such thinking would be naive indeed, based upon the evidence I have seen with my own eyes.

By the way, the introduction to the 1837 edition and the explanation of intent was not placed there with First Presidency approval. Neither was the Preface of the first edition. (There was no First Presidency at the time, although the Prophet himself wrote that preface with the help of Oliver Cowdery). However, they did not consider it inspired, revelation, or anything but a preface when it was omitted from every succeeding edition and a number of editions from 1840 to 1920 edition did not contain an Introduction at all!

Perhaps McConkie was just writing what was believed at the time.

Perhaps. But even Bruce R. McConkie believed that there were others also there. He just believed that the Lamanites were the most important ancestors. They are not all the ancestors of the American Indians. They are among the ancestors of those people. But, just because they are not the only ancestors of these people does not make them not ancestors at all. Only God knows the full answer to that question.

I do find of interest part of your quotation:

...

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." (Spencer W. Kimball, â??Of Royal Blood,â? Ensign, Jul 1971, 7)...

Indian mixtures...and others? Hmmm.

[MormonMason]

Yeah, all those world travelers were hopping from continent to continent and mixing DNA.

Actually, surprisingly enough, there is growing evidence that just such a thing did happen, ranging from cultural influences to all-out migration and accidental contacts. That you were ignorant of such demonstrates a degree of ignorance on the matter.

[MormonMason]

So you are saying that it has taken up to 180 years to see the errors by the scribes and in the [typography]? And how do we now know that there are [typographical] errors when no one noticed for 180 years. If it is by new revelation, don't you think we should be told?

Yes, many typographical errors escaped the eyes of those in charge of typesetting for that long. There still are a few but these were difficult to correct because the ink had faded in places. Now that we have UV and IR photography, and multi-spectral imaging technologies, we can now see these faded spots and can correct the text. I posted an example above relative to 1 Nephi 12:18. In the case of the 1981 edition, it was noticed that an entire portion of a verse has been missing from the printed text for 150 years! It never even so much as made it into the First Edition!

Alma 32:30

Original Manuscript:

...but behold as the seed swelleth & sprouteth & begineth to grow & then ye must needs say that the seed is good for behold it swelleth & sprouteth & begineth to grow & now behold will not this strengthen your faith yea it will strengthen your faith for ye will say I know that this is a good seed for behold it sprouteth & begineth to grow...

Printer's Manuscript (punctuation added by the Printer):

but behold, as the seed swelleth, & sprouteth, & begineth to grow, then ye must needs say, that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, & sprouteth, & begineth to grow. & now behold, will not this strengthen your faith? yea, it will strengthen your faith, for ye will say, I know that this is a good seed, for behold, it sprouteth & begineth to grow.

1830 Edition:

But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, and then ye must needs say, That the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow.

1837 Edition:

But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then ye must needs say, that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow.

1840 Edition:

But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then ye must needs say, that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow.

1879 Edition:

But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow.

1920 Edition:

But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow.

1981 Edition:

But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.

I can give many more examples of this sort of thing. I really do not see the need to spend the time, however. I have made my point.

[cksalmon]

Hi Larry--

Question for you.

Here's the situation as I see it:

If the change was/is meant to counter misunderstandings among many readers that the adjective "principal" ("highest in rank or importance") actually means the noun "principle" ("origin"--for which that phrase would need to read, "..."they are the principle of the Native Americans..."), why did LDS leadership decide not only to change the wording, but change the meaning of the phrase as well?

In other words, if the belief is (and has always been?) that the Lamanites are the "most important" ancestors of the Native Americans (numerical superiority aside), why change the wording to state that they are merely one group of ancestors among many?

The change completely jettisons the apologetic idea that I've seen bandied about here on FAIR on numerous occasions--viz., that "principal" has always meant "most important." But, the change abandons even that line of thought and replaces it with the ambiguous phrase "among the ancestors," which carries no hint of the importance or rank of the Lamanites in NA ancestry at all.

If they wanted to clarify the intent, why wouldn't they have changed "principal" to "the most important" or "the highest in rank" or "the greatest," or some such?

I realize you can't read their minds, but I'm wondering how the ambiguity of the new, diminished, statement meshes with your argument that the change was made purely to accommodate poor readerly skills.

Best.

CKS

[Bsix]

It should be pointed out that the original Book of Mormon has no introduction that is anything really close to being equivalent to what exists in the Book of Mormon today.

So, the critics are complaining about something that has been changed that was never in the Book of Mormon until much, much later.

Did the 'principle ancestors' notion reflect the opinions of past leaders and the membership of the Church? It sure did. Was the 'principle ancestors' ever, ever a formal doctrine of the Church? No.

Regard,

Six

[cksalmon]

It should be pointed out that the original Book of Mormon has no introduction that is anything really close to being equivalent to what exists in the Book of Mormon today.

So, the critics are complaining about something that has been changed that was never in the Book of Mormon until much, much later.

Did the 'principle ancestors' notion reflect the opinions of past leaders and the membership of the Church? It sure did. Was the 'principle ancestors' ever, ever a formal doctrine of the Church? No.

Regard,

Six

Hi Bsix--

But "principle ancestors" is a manifest impossibility in English. "Principle" is a noun, not an adjective (and never functions adjectivally). Again, the phrase would have needed to have been "...they are the principle of the Native Americans..." in order for the phrase, technically, to need correction. Assuming for the sake of argument the poor readerly skills that necessitated a change of some sort, why this one?

Yes, it only appeared in 1981. Granted. My question for Larry is, "Why change the meaning of the phrase that has been in print since 1981?" Are the Lamanites no longer considered by LDS leadership to be the "most important" ancestors of Native Americans? They are no longer claimed to be such, per the new intro. That's at the heart of my question for Larry.

Best.

CKS