Book Of Mormon's Intro Changed

[Pahoran]

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.

This is a remarkable judgement, especially coming from the same fellow who was triumphantly preening about how the change proves that the previous wording was in error.

Was that also maladroit? Or just malicious?

Again: the word "principal" does not mean "most numerous." It never did. Every attempt--without exception--to eisegetically misintepret it as such was either maladroit or malfeasant.

The really remarkable thing about that "principal ancestors" phrase was that it clearly signalled that the Lamanites were not the only ancestors in view. The very minor change to a non-canonical introduction simply takes away a favourite anti-Mormon bludgeon. Of course you lot are now counterfactually claiming victory. What else can you do? Knowing, as you do, that as soon as the dust settles you will be left with the fact that Murphy is a dilettante, Southerton a blunderer, and none of you have a leg to stand on any more.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

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

What point? That you are relying entirely upon the post hoc fallacy in making your unqualified pontifical pronouncements?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Thinking]

What point? That you are relying entirely upon the post hoc fallacy in making your unqualified pontifical pronouncements?

This isn't post hoc and you know it!

Now if I was suggesting that the excommunication of George P. Lee somehow caused the change in the introduction, that would post hoc.

[Pahoran]

This isn't post hoc and you know it!

Now if I was suggesting that the excommunication of George P. Lee somehow caused the change in the introduction, that would post hoc.

You have been triumphantly--and vacantly--pontificating that the change in the introduction was caused by "science." Your only evidence for that is the fact that the "science" in question came before the change. That is exactly post hoc and, your heated denials notwithstanding, you know it.

(In fact the bulk of the "science" came before the 1981 Introduction itself.)

Regards,

Pahoran

[Paul D]

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.

Maybe the question ought to be, I wonder what this will do to the Mormon Church issue? I realize that some are feeling a sense of relief of not having to reconcile a glaring error with reality, but glossing over a lie doesn't remove the lie. It's still there, and given the amount of literature the MC has churned out over the last 175+ years, there is still the stench of the lie percolating beneath the most recent gloss. Frankly, I'm almost of the impression that what we'll see is the MC continuing to distance itself from its history and doctrine, with perhaps another split taking place, where the more "fundamentalist" kind of Mormon rejecting the recent change, and the rest continuing is evolution into a quasi-religious business more or less after the order of a Scientology. Whatever the case, it is nice to see that at least some in the Mormon Church are acknowledging the error of its past. Now if we could only see it come fully to the truth.

Take a day off Paul, learn to be nice. ~Mods

[Pahoran]

Maybe the question ought to be, I wonder what this will do to the Mormon Church issue?

I'm sorry, but what is "the Mormon Church issue?" Is this some kind of Calvinist ubermenschen code phrase for "we have to live on the same planet with Mormons(ugh)?"

I realize that some are feeling a sense of relief of not having to reconcile a glaring error with reality, but glossing over a lie doesn't remove the lie.

There was no "glaring error," and the only "lie" in view is the knee-jerk false accusation that any beliefs some bigots reject must automatically be "lies."

It's still there, and given the amount of literature the MC has churned out over the last 175+ years, there is still the stench of the lie percolating beneath the most recent gloss.

It's not a gloss, and there was no lie.

Frankly, I'm almost of the impression that what we'll see is the MC continuing to distance itself from its history and doctrine,

In order to "continue" to do so, the "MC" would have to start doing so.

And it hasn't, yet.

with perhaps another split taking place, where the more "fundamentalist" kind of Mormon rejecting the recent change,

Well, if there should be anyone "fundamentalist" enough to think a minor clarification in a non-canonical introduction is something worth rejecting, you'd understand their mindset far better than any believing Latter-day Saint ever could.

and the rest continuing is evolution into a quasi-religious business more or less after the order of a Scientology.

Thank you for admitting that we are not now such a "quasi-religious business more or less after the order of" Concerned Christians, Inc. I shall take that as a concession, made in a rare moment of candour, that we are in fact a Church and nothing else.

Whatever the case, it is nice to see that at least some in the Mormon Church are acknowledging the error of its past.

No such acknowledgement was made, and seems to be a figment of a shared anti-Mormon imagination.

Now if we could only see it come fully to the truth.

That's where it already is.

Take a day off Paul, learn to be nice. ~Mods

Is there a crash course running somewhere?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Rusty Springs]

Thank you for admitting that we are not now such a "quasi-religious business more or less after the order of" Concerned Christians, Inc. I shall take that as a concession, made in a rare moment of candour, that we are in fact a Church and nothing else.

From what Paul D wrote, he wasn't admitting that the LDS Church wasn't a quasi-religious business. He was merely saying that it was looking more like the quasi-religious business L. Ron Hubbard's "church," which isn't a church at all.

[Pahoran]

From what Paul D wrote, he wasn't admitting that the LDS Church wasn't a quasi-religious business.

Not intentionally, no. But since he was anticipating this as the future outcome of a process of evolution, he quite inadvertently admitted that this is not now the case.

Which, just BTW, is an entirely non-controversial fact that is readily acknowledged by all non-bigots everywhere. The Church of Jesus Christ is a church--a religious organisation--and nothing else. It is certainly not "a quasi-religious business," whatever that may be.

He was merely saying that it was looking more like the quasi-religious business L. Ron Hubbard's "church," which isn't a church at all.

That's as may be, but it is off-topic for this thread. Or even for this board.

And damnation by association is a dishonest rhetorical trick, and as such is beloved of anti-Mormons.

Regards,

Pahoran

[MormonMason]

True.

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

You might want to rephrase that statement. The truth is that many of the elements of limited geographical theories have been published, just not in the Book of Mormon introduction. The Ensign carried a few articles on the subject, as did the Improvement Era and several LDS books from the 1920s onward.

Just FYI.

[Pahoran]

You might want to rephrase that statement. The truth is that many of the elements of limited geographical theories have been published, just not in the Book of Mormon introduction. The Ensign carried a few articles on the subject, as did the Improvement Era and several LDS books from the 1920s onward.

Just FYI.

And in fact, as I wrote above, the really remarkable thing about that "principal ancestors" phrase was that it clearly signalled that the Lamanites were not the only ancestors in view. Which is to say, the disputed phrase actually incorporates a key element of LGT thought.

Which means that (heh heh) "Thinking" wasn't thinking when he blurted out his false dichotomy.

Regards,

Pahoran

[MormonMason]

FYI.

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

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

Ummm... I already said that above...

[Thinking]

You have been triumphantly--and vacantly--pontificating that the change in the introduction was caused by "science." Your only evidence for that is the fact that the "science" in question came before the change. That is exactly post hoc and, your heated denials notwithstanding, you know it.

(In fact the bulk of the "science" came before the 1981 Introduction itself.)

If there is actual cause and effect, you just can't claim post hoc and move on.

[MormonMason]

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.

I talked about this above. The committee was NOT organized merely to construct or write the introduction to the Book of Mormon as you naively seem to believe. The committee WAS organized to create an entirely new and more useful set of scriptures that were more unified, solved a few problems with the fact that we were using so many different versions of the KJV for portions of the Church population, and which contained a number of helps as aids to studying the scriptures. It was later decided to write an introduction during the course of the work as the Book of Mormon did not have an introduction for many years.

[Pahoran]

If there is actual cause and effect, you just can't claim post hoc and move on.

And that "if" is the key to the problem, isn't it?

CFR that there was "actual cause and effect" and not just an assumption of your own based upon the post hoc fallacy.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Thinking]

I talked about this above. The committee was NOT organized merely to construct or write the introduction to the Book of Mormon as you naively seem to believe. The committee WAS organized to create an entirely new and more useful set of scriptures that were more unified, solved a few problems with the fact that we were using so many different versions of the KJV for portions of the Church population, and which contained a number of helps as aids to studying the scriptures. It was later decided to write an introduction during the course of the work as the Book of Mormon did not have an introduction for many years.

So because the main purpose of the committee was not just the introduction, they get a pass on the introduction?

[MormonMason]

And in fact, as I wrote above, the really remarkable thing about that "principal ancestors" phrase was that it clearly signalled that the Lamanites were not the only ancestors in view. Which is to say, the disputed phrase actually incorporates a key element of LGT thought.

Which means that (heh heh) "Thinking" wasn't thinking when he blurted out his false dichotomy.

Regards,

Pahoran

I agree. I never understood the Introduction, as it was written and published, to signify that the Lamanites were the only ancestors, so I saw it as a concession to that LGT anyway. I suppose that, even then, many misread it and understood it still to represent the only ancestry. Now that the change has come, I think everyone finally will figure it out. After all, there is now no room for doubt or misunderstanding, and pseudoscientists will now have to revise this portion of their inane rants. I am sure that there will be some of the "Introduction is Canon" crowd more displeased and who will eventually find this as an excuse to to leave the Church, but, for the most part things will quiet down and become business as usual for most of the membership.

[Thinking]

And that "if" is the key to the problem, isn't it?

CFR that there was "actual cause and effect" and not just an assumption of your own based upon the post hoc fallacy.

When the assumption is reasonable based on the evidence, post hoc doesn't apply. That doesn't mean that more evidence might ultimately prove the assumption wrong, but you can't throw out a reasonable premise just because it hasn't been proven.

[MormonMason]

So because the main purpose of the committee was not just the introduction, they get a pass on the introduction?

I talked about "blanket approval" and what that entailed above. I even gave a couple examples of such blanket approvals for editions of the Book of Mormon and for manuals. Yes, they not only get a pass on the Introduction, they get a pass on the entire work of the committee as a whole.

None of it was expected to be or believed to be error-free. None of the work was considered revelation or official pronouncments on the teachings of the Church or considered an integral part of the Book of Mormon text. And, the First Presidency did not comb over each and every single footnote, each and every single word of text in either the Bible Dictionary or Introduction, or anything of the kind. They accepted the work of the committee as a whole and that was that. I am sorry that you are not understanding the details in this case. I do not know what else I can do to help you to understand. I have stated what I have stated. I have provided examples of the kind of approval that came to the work of the committee. Whether or not you try to understand or even believe it entirely is up to you.

[Pahoran]

When the assumption is reasonable based on the evidence, post hoc doesn't apply. That doesn't mean that more evidence might ultimately prove the assumption wrong, but you can't throw out a reasonable premise just because it hasn't been proven.

What evidence? A CFR is before you. Produce the evidence, please. Otherwise, it remains a post hoc assumption that merely appears "reasonable" to you because it is consistent with your prejudices.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Thinking]

You might want to rephrase that statement. The truth is that many of the elements of limited geographical theories have been published, just not in the Book of Mormon introduction. The Ensign carried a few articles on the subject, as did the Improvement Era and several LDS books from the 1920s onward.

You're correct. I could have been more clear.

However, McConkie's beliefs were published in the Book of Mormon introduction, not the limited geographical theories.

[Pahoran]

You're correct. I could have been more clear.

However, McConkie's beliefs were published in the Book of Mormon introduction, not the limited geographical theories.

Still relying upon a false dichotomy even after it's been pointed out to you?

And when are we going to see the evidence you've been asked for?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Thinking]

What evidence? A CFR is before you. Produce the evidence, please. Otherwise, it remains a post hoc assumption that merely appears "reasonable" to you because it is consistent with your prejudices.

CFR is used when you honestly don't know where to find the information and you don't believe that it exists. If I was talking about something which was not common knowledge, I would understand the need for a CFR. But I'll let you choose from the 1,660 results which showed up when I typed lamanite dna into the search box.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=lamanite+...ss&ei=UTF-8

[MormonMason]

You're correct. I could have been more clear.

However, McConkie's beliefs were published in the Book of Mormon introduction, not the limited geographical theories.

You are mistaken. McConkie's preface as it originally existed allowed for LGT. Principal does not mean all and never did. Thus, the preface allowed for LGT. The new revision also does so and removes wiggle-room for those who reject LGT.

[Pahoran]

CFR is used when you honestly don't know where to find the information and you don't believe that it exists. If I was talking about something which was not common knowledge, I would understand the need for a CFR. But I'll let you choose from the 1,660 results which showed up when I typed lamanite dna into the search box.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=lamanite+...ss&ei=UTF-8

As you perfectly well know, you are dodging the question. As you perfectly well know, DNA is not the point at issue. As you perfectly well know, the question is whether you can demonstrate the "actual cause and effect" you claim exists between the DNA stuff and the change to the Intro.

I take it, then, that you cannot.

I don't wish to embarrass you further, "Thinking." If you are unable to demonstrate such a relationship, then don't bother replying, and we shall simply chalk this up to your rather un-"Thinking" reliance upon the post hoc fallacy.

Just see that you refrain from trying to conceal the weakness of your argument by accusing me of being less than honest while you are in the act of trying to pull a fast one.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Thinking]

As you perfectly well know, you are dodging the question. As you perfectly well know, DNA is not the point at issue. As you perfectly well know, the question is whether you can demonstrate the "actual cause and effect" you claim exists between the DNA stuff and the change to the Intro.

I take it, then, that you cannot.

I don't wish to embarrass you further, "Thinking." If you are unable to demonstrate such a relationship, then don't bother replying, and we shall simply chalk this up to your rather un-"Thinking" reliance upon the post hoc fallacy.

Just see that you refrain from trying to conceal the weakness of your argument by accusing me of behing less than honest while you are in the act of trying to pull a fast one.

Wrong. You keep changing the question.

When I showed you that post hoc didn't apply, you threw a CFR at me. Then when I answered your CFR with a link, you claimed that DNA is not the issue. DNA has been a principal issue in this thread from the beginning. I'm not sure why you are claiming otherwise.