Book Of Mormon's Intro Changed

[ed2276]

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

How about this? The leadership of the Church , or at least the ones repsonsible for putting together the past Introduction in question really believed that , based on whatever evidences and reasoning they had , or thought they had , the Lamanites must be the principal ancestors of the Native Americans. Currently , the leadership isn't certain about the degree of Lamanite ancestry represented in Native American populations , but they are convinced that at least to some degree that relationship exists. Therefore , it is more correct to say that the Lamanites are among the ancestors of the Native American populations rather than their principal ancestors.

I have no problem at all with the change , and perhaps the "principal" phraseology was a poor choice when the Introduction was penned in the 1980's , but I don't think this present change is as devastating to LDS thought as you might hope for.

BTW , the LDS thought I have seen bandied about here is just as varied as the questions rasied by the "primary" or "among" usages. There have been discussions on Lamanite and Nephite , MesoAmerican population growth and the possiblity of the small Lamanite and Nephite bands having been assimilated into other populations being the most likely way the Lamanite and Nephite populations could have experienced rapid growth. So , I don't think that it would be correct to say that LDS thought here has been one unified voice that the Lamanites were the "principal" ancestors of Native Americans. Whether the Native American's ancestors are principally Asian , I think that it is more correct to say that the Lamanites are among the Native Americans' ancestors , rather than their principal ancestors.

[cksalmon]

I think that it is more correct to say that the Lamanites are among the Native Americans' ancestors , rather than their principal ancestors.

I do, too. But, note what you seem to be disavowing: that it is the less correct option to suggest that the Lamanites are the "most important" ancestors of the Native Americans. Other ancestors, de facto, are more important.

Barney, from FAIR, seems to suggest that LDS leadership has been recently listening to apologetic arguments about the New World presence of Lehi's descendants.

"These things can change as the scholarship progresses and our understanding enlarges. This suggests to me that someone on the church's scripture committee is paying attention to the discussion."

The discussion has been almost completely an apologetic one. It seems that Barney attributes the change, in some measure, to LDS apologetics with regard to LGT.

Best.

CKS

[ed2276]

I do, too. But, note what you seem to be disavowing: that it is the less correct option to suggest that the Lamanites are the "most important" ancestors of the Native Americans. Other ancestors, de facto, are more important.

Well , I think one can have one's cake and eat it too. While acknowledging that the Lamanites are among the Native Americans' ancestors LDS can also say that among all those who are the Native Americans' ancestors the Lamanites are the Native Americans' ancestors of primary importance in LDS thought. For me , at least , this change may more accurately reflect the contribution of Lamanite ancestry in Native American populations while not diminishing the primary importance of that ancestory in relation to the covenants , etc promised in the Book of Mormon.

Barney, from FAIR, seems to suggest that LDS leadership has been recently listening to apologetic arguments about the New World presence of Lehi's descendants.

The discussion has been almost completely an apologetic one. It seems that Barney attributes the change, in some measure, to LDS apologetics with regard to LGT.

Best.

CKS

That could be. I wonder if that is because the most research into these subjects has been done by those who are LDS apologists , rather than the day-to-day administrators in the Church. I mean , there is no office of Native American and Lamanite Ancestry Research in the Church Office Building , as far as I know. So , it seems to me that the "principal" ( ) source of influential research and thought into these matters come from "among" ( ) the LDS academic / apologist crowd.

[Thinking]

Actually if foreign editions did not contain the introduction, we can honestly say that the English version was an exception to the rule.

From the Spanish version: "...los lamanitas, los cuales son los principales antecesores de los indios de las Am

[LifeOnaPlate]

No & Yes. If science wasn't needed, then why was it that science was the catalyst that led to the change?

Did it ever occur to you there have been people who disagreed with what the Introduction said from the time it was first printed? Just wondering.

[Thinking]

Did it ever occur to you there have been people who disagreed with what the Introduction said from the time it was first printed? Just wondering.

And nothing was done until science showed just how incorrect the introduction was. Thank you for reinforcing my point.

[poulsenll]

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

CKS

My conclusion was not that it was made to accomodate poor reader skills but to mitigate the results of those poor reader skills.

I agree that the new word does not clarify the point. It eliminates the argument. Personally, I think they were just as tired as I am of the way people, both members and critics, have used the Introduction to promote their own interpretation of the scriptures. It was created to help the reader, possibly a non member, understand what the Book was all about. As others have pointed out there was no such introduction in many previous editions. The introduction is just that an introduction, not a dissertation, commentary or explanation of what follows.The Church has continuously denied any revelation concernibng who the Nephites were or where they were located other than that it was on the American continents and that the Lamanites were not destroyed but would be blessed by the coming forth of the BofM. We are left to study out what the Scriptures mean to us and how they can help us to keep the commandments and progress eternally.

Larry P

[cksalmon]

CKS

My conclusion was not that it was made to accomodate poor reader skills but to mitigate the results of those poor reader skills.

Okay.

I agree that the new word does not clarify the point. It eliminates the argument.

I think that was sort of the point I was groping after.

The introduction is just that an introduction, not a dissertation, commentary or explanation of what follows.

Agreed.

The Church has continuously denied any revelation concernibng who the Nephites were or where they were located other than that it was on the American continents...

I agree, if you mean that the Church has relatively recently done so in a continuous manner. It certainly hasn't always done so--at one time, it was well-known and quite accepted among LDS that the Lamanites were the primary (and arguably only) ancestral source of the Native Americans. Thence, to my mind, arises the issue in the first place.

"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 years-six hundred years before Christ until four hundred after Christ-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." --Spencer W. Kimball, "Of Royal Blood," Ensign, July 1971, 7 (In the "Special Lamanite Section")

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.

Per D&C 54.8, the Lamanite descendants were at least known to be those at "the borders of" Missouri.

Now, that makes sense if the Lamanites were the only ancestors of the Native Americans--as JS apparently believed. It even makes some sense if the Lamanites were the most important ancestors of the Native Americans. But, it makes significantly less sense if the Lamanites were only "among" the ancestors of the Native Americans, with no (present) speculation as to what, if any, significance their Lamanite ancestry was/is.

If the Lamanites were only "among" the ancestors of the Native Americans, then it makes little sense, to my mind, to suggest, via revelation, that the "Indians" at the borders of Missouri were Lamanites.

It seems as if LDS leadership wants to have it both ways: (1) that the BoM Lamanites were, in some ambiguous sense, at least partly the ancestors of the Native Americans (per, at least D&C 54. and (2) that they do not wish to take a definitive stance about how "important" Lamanite ancestry is to North American Native American populations.

Per an LGT perspective, it is perfectly acceptable to suggest that the Indians bordering Missouri were not descendants of the Lamanites. But, that conclusion would not seem to be congruent with D&C 54.8 (among other LDS scriptures). For the revelator of D&C 54.8 (=God via JS), the Indians bordering Missouri actually were descendants of the Lamanites. But, were they?

The newly-revised introduction has no opinion. What opinion the 1981 introduction had has been mitigated into obscurity. Thus, as you wrote, the changes "eliminate the argument." I think that was rather the point.

And, here, we're back to DNA evidence. The Missouri Indians are not descended from Old World Jewish stock. We know that. So, contra D&C 54.8, we're left with a Native American population that, according to the new introduction, cannot at all be said to be traced to Lamanite ancestry. Perhaps they are; perhaps they're not. Who knows? The Lamanites are merely "among" the ancestors of Native Americans. There is nothing, or precious little, testable here. I think that is the point: to render the pronouncement less precise, more ambiguous, and untestable by scientific means.

In line with the new introduction, an LDS might argue that the LDS church claims only that the Lamanites were one line of ancestry among many, and, thus, it is not requisite that one find any evidence of their purported ancestry. After all, the LDS Church now only claims that Lamanites were one group of DNA stock among many. That actually is what LDS apologists have been arguing for many years now.

It's a much less bold and brazen claim. And, I believe, it is a diminished claim owing to empirical evidence much more so than to linguistic issues.

Best.

CKS

[Daniel Peterson]

Per an LGT perspective, it is perfectly acceptable to suggest that the Indians bordering Missouri were not descendants of the Lamanites.

But it is also perfectly acceptable to suggest that they were.

But, that conclusion would not seem to be congruent with D&C 54.8 (among other LDS scriptures). For the revelator of D&C 54.8 (=God via JS), the Indians bordering Missouri actually were descendants of the Lamanites. But, were they?

I'm inclined to think so.

Is there any LGT-theorist out there who says that they weren't?

And, here, we're back to DNA evidence. The Missouri Indians are not descended from Old World Jewish stock. We know that.

Do we?

So, contra D&C 54.8, we're left with a Native American population that, according to the new introduction, cannot at all be said to be traced to Lamanite ancestry.

Really?

After all, the LDS Church now only claims that Lamanites were one group of DNA stock among many. That actually is what LDS apologists have been arguing for many years now.

Yes, and for reasons quite unrelated to DNA.

[Anijen]

I live here in the heartland and see Indians usually daily. I work often on many different reservations. I know many brethren and sisters of different Indian races and find them truly wonderful people. The culture is different than what many of us are used too, they have weaknesses to alcohol as one of their trials but we all have weaknesses and trials in our lives. I love these brethren and believe that they have a more direct ancestry to the Lamanites than I do to Ephraim as per my PB though I believe both. Gosh the thoughts I have in my head are not translating through my keyboard (darn medications). So Ill give up now because I feel Ive already muddied the waters here.

[Deborah]

I think when talking about descendants and ancestry as far as God is concerned we are talking about more than mere DNA. The parable of the olive tree comes into play. In verse 14 of Jacob 5 we read "And it came to pass that the Lord of the vineyard went his way, and hid the natural branches of the tame olive-tree in the nethermost parts of the vineyard, some in one and some in another, according to his will and pleasure." This represents the scattering of Israel and the mixture of the blood of Israel into all the peoples of the earth. To get stuck on what is "prinicipal" ancestry is to get stuck a strawman argument as the dissemination of the blood of Israel is more of a spiritual heritage.

[Thinking]

Perhaps we can understand why Bruce R. McConkie chose the word "principal" by reading what he wrote in Mormon Doctrine.

"When Columbus discovered America, the native inhabitants, the American Indians as they were soon to be designated, were a people of mixed blood and origin. Chiefly they were Lamanites...The American Indians, however, as Columbus found them also had other blood than that of Israel in their veins...But with it all, for the great majority of the descendants of the original inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere, the dominant blood lineage is that of Israel." (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 32-33)

chiefly: 1 Most of all or above all. 2 Generally; mostly.

dominant: 1 Ruling; governing; prevailing. 2 Having a masking effect on a contrasting or recessive factor in the genetic endowment of an organism.

[Daniel Peterson]

And nothing was done until science showed just how incorrect the introduction was. Thank you for reinforcing my point.

One could say, from another vantage point, that science vindicated the advocates of limited geographical theories.

One could also say other things. But I won't.

[Thinking]

One could say, from another vantage point, that science vindicated the advocates of limited geographical theories.

True.

However, McConkie's introduction was published, not the limited geographical theories.

[Moon Quaker]

And to think, all those missionaries over the decades [serving in Latin America] who thought they were preaching directly to Lehi's descendents were probably just preaching to non-Lehite stock instead. And the "Lamanite Placement Program" is nothing but a misnomer. They should have called it the "American Indian [who are not likely descended directly from Lehi] Placement Program." ;-)

[SolarPowered]

And to think, all those missionaries over the decades [serving in Latin America] who thought they were preaching directly to Lehi's descendents were probably just preaching to non-Lehite stock instead. And the "Lamanite Placement Program" is nothing but a misnomer. They should have called it the "American Indian [who are not likely descended directly from Lehi] Placement Program." ;-)

Why do you think that anything on this thread implies that? It doesn't.

[Moon Quaker]

Why do you think that anything on this thread implies that? It doesn't.

Why do you infer that my tongue-in-cheek comment is serious to begin with? It's not.

[why me]

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

Exactly, That was my point a few pages back. The critics are acting like this introduction was always a part of the text. It wasn't. But I am afraid that this argument will be lost in the shuffle. It will not be discussed on post/ex boards at all.

For the post/ex mo, what is important is to see the change as a come down and in this way, seek confirmation for their new paridaigm. As interesting as this discussion may be, it does not change the validation of the book of mormon nor the witnesses testimonies. They still stand as a testament.

What I find interesting is the absolute understanding that god has for human nature. Without the witnesses the book would have been placed in the garbage a long time ago since our faith always seems to be conditionally based on signs.

By the witnesses going through their own life struggles and never denying their experience of the plates, they cement their testimonies in this age of disbelief.

[why me]

True.

However, McConkie's introduction was published, not the limited geographical theories.

I think that it was stated by DCP that the introduction did not have smooth sailing among the people drafting it. I have my opinion that Bruce R. wanted the wording and he got his way. But not without some angst by the other members of the commitee. Until that introduction the debate about the hemispheric model or the LGT was present within the academic community. Unfortunately among members, the hemispheric model was dominant. I can't remember the LGT theory ever being discussed in classes.

Bruce R. was a well respected GA. He was no light wait. I think that it would have been difficult to overshadow him in decisions that were made about the introduction.

That being said, an introduction is just that an introduction. Many books have introductions written by scholars. But this doesn't mean that someone else writing the introduction wouldn't come up with a different take on the book in question. Introductions are often matters of opinion about the information in the text. It basically serves as a function of introducing the text, nothing more.

[why me]

And nothing was done until science showed just how incorrect the introduction was. Thank you for reinforcing my point.

I think that if you were to read Larry's previous post, you will see that most likely the introduction was changed to keep more in line with chruch teachings on the subject. As I have said, the LGT and Hemispheric model were discussed in academic and church circles. But the hemispheric model was widely believed. Bruce R. was firmly in the Hemispheric camp but others were more careful in their opinions. Also, if the book of mormon is read, one would find very little in common with Native American culture. I would not consider it a history of Native America nor of its traditions. But that is only my opinion.

In fact, when I first read it, I thought that it would have teepees and wampam not to mention other sterotypical accounts of Native America. But the book is just the opposite of sterotypes.

[Thinking]

I think that it was stated by DCP that the introduction did not have smooth sailing among the people drafting it. I have my opinion that Bruce R. wanted the wording and he got his way. But not without some angst by the other members of the commitee. Until that introduction the debate about the hemispheric model or the LGT was present within the academic community. Unfortunately among members, the hemispheric model was dominant. I can't remember the LGT theory ever being discussed in classes.

Bruce R. was a well respected GA. He was no light wait. I think that it would have been difficult to overshadow him in decisions that were made about the introduction.

That being said, an introduction is just that an introduction. Many books have introductions written by scholars. But this doesn't mean that someone else writing the introduction wouldn't come up with a different take on the book in question. Introductions are often matters of opinion about the information in the text. It basically serves as a function of introducing the text, nothing more.

I have one question. Did the first presidency approve the introduction before it was published?

Also, the "just an introduction" defense is wimpy at best. This is the introduction for the foundational book of scripture for the Church. It was so important that a committee was formed and the most respected GA scholar of the time was in charge.

[Thinking]

FYI.

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

Thomas S. Monson and Boyd K. Packer were also on the committee.

[Thinking]

The explanations which I have read in this thread remind me of an experience I had in one of my classes at BYU.

While preparing for the final test, I referred to the syllabus to give me an idea of what to study for the test. It stated that at least 50% of the test would be from chapters 11 & 12. So I spent about half of my study time on those chapters. There was not one single question on the final from those two chapters. After the test I asked the professor why there were no questions from those two chapters when the syllabus stated that half of the test would come from them. He repied, "I didn't write the syllabus."

[Daniel Peterson]

And to think, all those missionaries over the decades [serving in Latin America] who thought they were preaching directly to Lehi's descendents were probably just preaching to non-Lehite stock instead. And the "Lamanite Placement Program" is nothing but a misnomer. They should have called it the "American Indian [who are not likely descended directly from Lehi] Placement Program." ;-)

None of that is necessarily entailed by the change to the introduction, so why do you bring it up?

[ThePhy]

Again, let's go to the dictionary:

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

etc

â??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.

I wonder about all the calls I am seeing in this thread for people to refer to the dictionary. Was the statement under dispute so poorly written by McConkie that the reader could not rely on the everyday understanding of words?

Though that statement was not part of the canon, it is not likely that many people, and especially newcomers to the Book of Mormon, draw a clear mental distinction between the introduction and the text itself. If I were a new investigator, would the missionaries caution me to give full trust to only the words that appear starting in 1 Nephi?

Simple bet, odds in your favor. Take just the unadorned statement as penned by McConkie to 1000 people who know nothing of the Book of Mormon. Let them read the statement, and then summarize what it conveyed to them. That will be the message it brought to the reading audience. For each person saying â??principalâ? meant â??most importantâ? or something other than biological ancestry, I give you $10. For each person who understood â??principalâ? to mean ancestry, you give me $5. Like those odds?

Paraphrasing cdowis: "Once again the dictionary provides something for the LDS to hide behind when the ordinary understanding of a word does not support their latest revision of belief."