Book Of Mormon's Intro Changed

[cksalmon]

Now I must remind the critics that this GA had this information in his BYU class and what year was this? Quite awhile ago.

And so what do we have? We have two theories being debated by church academics at a church sponsored university. Quite amazing, right? Now in 1993, the GA relates his take on it based on the link that was provided and the quotation that I provided from the link.

And so what is the problem?? I see no problem.

WM--

And the great debate goes back quite a bit further than that, as you know, and as I've previously stated (though I don't think anyone needed my own observation to realize it).

Again, I don't see DNA as the efficient cause of the change (though some others may). External data sets were crystallizing long before DNA analysis was even a possibility.

CKS

[Bernard Gui]

Way back in the early nineteenth century, when I was a kid growing up in California, I used to see ads in the old California Intermountain News (the local LDS paper), brochures from BYU Travel Studies, and the like, advertising trips to "Book of Mormon lands."

None of them ever went to Nebraska, or Maine, or Louisiana, or Manitoba, or British Columbia, or even Arizona.

I often used to see books about "Book of Mormon lands." They weren't very good, but, even then, they always focused essentially on Mexico, Guatemala, and etc.

Even on a popular level, something vaguely resembling a Mesoamerican limited geographical model has been dominant among the rank and file, practically speaking, for many, many years.

And even earlier than the nineteenth century when I was serving in the Central American Mission, we showed Church produced film strips ("What are film strips?, you ask, young grasshopper) and we carried inserts in our discussions binders with pictures of Mezo-American sites and objects to use when we taught about the Book of Mormon.

Bernard

[Moriancumer]

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?

Good idea! The introduction of the online German edition goes as follows:

Nach mehreren tausend Jahren waren alle zerschlagen au

[SolarPowered]

The film Ancient America Speaks played a significant role in my conversion to the Church in 1978. That film was quite LGT in orientation.

.

[Moriancumer]

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: 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.

I respectfully disagree. If you look at how "remnant" is used in the BoM it means "torn-off" or "separated" (one example: Moroni comparing Joseph's Coat of many colors to the Title of Liberty). In other words, a remnant is still an intact piece, not a watered-down version.

-M

[cksalmon]

QUOTE(Deborah @ Nov 10 2007, 09:25 AM) *

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: 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.

It's not so much the change in the wording as much as it is the underlying anthropological paradigm. I don't think it's nit-picking to question the change from "the principal" to "among."

For the reasons the FARMS article referenced above made clear, this is a good change for BoM apologetics. The intro's claim is much less confirmable or disconfirmable now.

The claim has been significantly and publicly pushed back a step or two now. The apologetic answer has shifted from "Lamanites are the most important ancestors of the Native Americans" (as has been argued here many times over my the course of my time on this board) to something more like "We have no idea how important Lamanite ancestry is for Native Americans." It has been both tacitly and explicitly acknowledged that the anthropological data has shown that most Native Americans are descended from Northeast Asian stock.

The introduction's new claim is much more restrictive (in terms of its explanatory power), much more general (in terms of its confirmable claims), and, in short, presents BoM critics with a "notoriously difficult task."

It reads like an official change designed to confound the critics' arguments against BoM historicity--no matter how long some LDS scholars have questioned and argued against HGT. Now, that questioning is, apparently, becoming something approaching "official."

As FAIR's Barney suggested, someone on the scripture committee is finally paying attention to a debate that's been ongoing for quite some time. The scripture committee seems to be coming down on the side of a less-enthusiastic claim about NA origins vis-a-vis the BoM narrative.

But, since it's not really part of the canon, I'm not sure what weight the change will actually have. The principal Lamanite ancestry of North American Native Americans will undoubtedly still be taught by some. As some have written, that scenario isn't actually ruled out by the change. At least not explicitly.

But, certainly, the (non-canonical, introductory) change moves toward the diminishing of a formerly-bolder claim. That much is certain, despite the argument I've read from some that "principal" really has always meant "among," and shame on the critics for misunderstanding that.

CKS

[MormonMason]

...und diese sind die Hauptvorfahren der amerikanischen Indianer.

...and these are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.

For non-speakers and non-readers of German:

und = and

diese = these

sind = are

die = the

Hauptvorfahren (compound word composed of Haupt... and Vorfahr + plural ending en) = principal ancestors

der = (of) the

amerikanischen = American

Indianer = Indians

"Hauptvorfahren" literally means "Main ancestors". The German brother who translated the BoM into Deutsch certainly thought that's what "Principal" meant (through personal revelation no doubt).

...

While the German "Haupt..." can carry a sense of main in some compound words, it also carries a similar range of meaning that the English word principal does, which makes it a good choice for the translation. My German dictionary gives as meanings for the word such definitions as: "head...," "chief...," "primary...," "general...," "central...," "leading..." and is used in many compound words as carrying the meaning of principal in contexts in which something is the most important something but neither the majority nor all. This is particulary so when used in an adjectival sense, then meaning: "principal, chief, main, essential, most important," etc. Its use and meaning is dependent upon context, particularly in translation.

By the way, to which German translation are you referring? There was one that was particularly bad. I do not remember all the particulars but I do remember how it rendered certain names of God in a non-idiomatic fashion. One example I remember that makes me cringe is the translation der Herr Gott rather than da Gott der Herr or Gott der Herr as would be expected in the Book of Mormon by traditional German Bible readers.

[Moriancumer]

It's not so much the change in the wording as much as it is the underlying anthropological paradigm. I don't think it's nit-picking to question the change from "the principal" to "among."

....

But, since it's not really part of the canon, I'm not sure what weight the change will actually have. The principal Lamanite ancestry of North American Native Americans will undoubtedly still be taught by some. As some have written, that scenario isn't actually ruled out by the change. At least not explicitly.

....

CKS

What still disturbs me is that the concept of Prinical Ancestors is part of the canon. They can change that one word in the introduction, but there are plenty of places in both the BoM and D&C where it still exists conceptually. That's why "The principal Lamanite ancestry of North American Native Americans will undoubtedly still be taught by some", rightfully so!

-M

[Avatar4321]

It is not in any way clear to me why some here think it is a bad thing if we adjust our interpretations of the BOM (or any other text) in light of new archaeological or scientific data. This is consistently done with Homer, the Bible, Herodotus, and all other ancient texts. I believe it's called scholarship in some circles.

Scholarship.... what a concept:)

[SolarPowered]

What still disturbs me is that the concept of Prinical Ancestors is part of the canon. They can change that one word in the introduction, but there are plenty of places in both the BoM and D&C where it still exists conceptually. That's why "The principal Lamanite ancestry of North American Native Americans will undoubtedly still be taught by some", rightfully so!

-M

Come on, give me a break. Call For References. Where does the Book of Mormon say anything to the effect that the Book of Mormon people are the "principal ancestors" of the modern American Indians?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Good idea! The introduction of the online German edition goes as follows:

Nach mehreren tausend Jahren waren alle zerschlagen au

[Avatar4321]

It's a decent summary of the situation. Why would critics ignore it? And, how would this approach strengthen

BoM apologia other than by making BoM historicity less investigable? And what's a validation syndrome?

I don't know. Why would critics ignore it? I could never figure it out, but it doesnt stop them from ignoring it or any other information that doesnt support their position.

I think it strengthens the argument because it leads people to resort to the one source that can clear everything up. If scholarship provides us with a "hung jury" so to speak, the only source one can go to for the answer is God. Which is what we want them to do in the first place.

[cdowis]

What still disturbs me is that the concept of Prinical Ancestors is part of the canon.

Have you read the posts in this thread, or just a couple? Look in the dictionary, look up the definition of "princial", then look up "majority".

Ignorance and laziness are terrible things. Please get your act together before making yourself look very silly.

[cksalmon]

Once again, I refer you to the dictionary. Look up the difference between "majority" and "principal" and get back to us.

Find out what "principal" actually means.

Ignorance is truly a terrible thing so get yourself educated instead of being a smart aleck.

Having checked my dictionary, OED (seriously), I do know that "principal" means nothing like "among." They're not even roughly synonymous. But, who cares? It's an introduction. Not canon.

The point is that the scripture committee changed the wording for some reason or another. And the fact is that "among" is a much more ambiguous, much less bold, claim than "the principal"--rendering the critic's counterargument a notoriously difficult task. Prove that Lamanite ancestry played no part in NA origins, goes the challenge.

If one cannot do so, then perhaps the modified, diminished claim that they were "among" the ancestors is rendered more convincing by being less disconfirmable.

CKS

[MormonMason]

Here is something from my two-volume German Dictionary, the Langensheit Concise German Dictionary 1:481:

Thus, as one can see, it has the same semantic force. One can even see that in the part concerning the "principal actor" which means not that the actor is the only actor or that he is the majority of actors, but that the actor is the most important actor, and so forth. To try to force the meaning of main ancestors into Hauptvorfahren will not fly with me (or, with anyone else who understands the semantic range of "Haupt..." for that matter).

[cinepro]

Sorry, but I view your argument as weak. I've noticed translations of the BoM (German, Russian for example) have some interesting inaccuracies in them, and I don't hold to them as proof of interpretation as you seem to do here.

CFR. References please.

Wouldn't that be awesome if the Church had a way to produce accurate translations of the most important work of scripture in the history of the world, even the Book of Mormon? Maybe some sort of divine power or something. Like a babelfish! Yeah, that would be cool.

It would be like the Book of Mormon was so important for the conversion of people to the True Church that God would ensure that non-English speaking people would get the same grade-A, certified true process. Then the translation could stand the test of time and not need to be redone after 40 or 50 years. If I were God, I would definitely make sure this happened. I would probably assign Joseph Smith (the angel) to over see this responsibility, and each translation would be done in the Holy of Holies of the Salt Lake Temple. I would also allow women to wear two pair of earrings, except on Sunday or in the Temple.

[Moriancumer]

By the way, to which German translation are you referring?

The last German translation of the BoM I know of was done by Immo Luschin and completed in 1980. That would put it on track to have the 1981 introduction.

I pulled the quote of the German langauge BoM introduction ("Hauptvorfahren") off the Church's official website. I'm assuming that translation is Bru. Luschin's. I don't think it's a question of it being a perfect translation, as it was no doubt inspired by a righteous servant of God trying to do his best at the time. Regardless, "Huaptvorfahren" certainly carries the connotation that at least 51% of the Native American Indian blood can be traced to the Lehites/Mulekites of the BoM.

-M

[structurecop]

I would also allow women to wear two pair of earrings, except on Sunday or in the Temple.

Well, now it's obvious that you could never be God.

[juliann]

The point is that the scripture committee changed the wording for some reason or another. And the fact is that "among" is a much more ambiguous, much less bold, claim than "the principal"--rendering the critic's counterargument a notoriously difficult task. Prove that Lamanite ancestry played no part in NA origins, goes the challenge.

Someone finally admitted the real reason behind all of the howling....and it has nothing to do with the BOM itself. As usual. The antis just lost a favorite toy and those Mormons took it!

Perhaps the antis will have to discuss the text now? Ouch.

[MormonMason]

...

Regardless, "Huaptvorfahren" certainly carries the connotation that at least 51% of the Native American Indian blood can be traced to the Lehites/Mulekites of the BoM.

Certainly does not look like that to me. The compund word itself implies nothing about percentage of anything. That is your reading into the word. Once again, go back up and look at the English-German Dictionary entry for "Principal" and notice definition 1 and see the semantic range and the first example, your "babelfish" translation notwithstanding.

[Moriancumer]

Here is something from my two-volume German Dictionary, the Langensheit Concise German Dictionary 1:481:

... To try to force the meaning of main ancestors into Hauptvorfahren will not fly with me (or, with anyone else who understands the semantic range of "Haupt..." for that matter).

Not forcing it by any means. Type "Hauptvorfahren" into babelfish (http://babelfish.altavista.com/tr). See for yourself, they come up with "main ancestor" also. It's entirely plausible and, taken with the evidence of such scattered throughout the BoM and D&C, probable.

(References on the way)

[LifeOnaPlate]

Wouldn't that be awesome if the Church had a way to produce accurate translations of the most important work of scripture in the history of the world, even the Book of Mormon? Maybe some sort of divine power or something. Like a babelfish! Yeah, that would be cool.

It would be like the Book of Mormon was so important for the conversion of people to the True Church that God would ensure that non-English speaking people would get the same grade-A, certified true process. Then the translation could stand the test of time and not need to be redone after 40 or 50 years. If I were God, I would definitely make sure this happened. I would probably assign Joseph Smith (the angel) to over see this responsibility, and each translation would be done in the Holy of Holies of the Salt Lake Temple. I would also allow women to wear two pair of earrings, except on Sunday or in the Temple.

But you're not God, so gladly we don't have to worry about what you would or would not do.

[MormonMason]

Not forcing it by any means. Type "Hauptvorfahren" into babelfish (http://babelfish.altavista.com/tr). See for yourself, they come up with "main ancestor" also. It's entirely plausible and, taken with the evidence of such scattered throughout the BoM and D&C, probable.

(References on the way)

Why do you think I put babelfish in quotes in another post? I knew where you got it. Do you honestly think that this translation service is accurate in all its parts? If so, that is a pretty naive way to think about it. While the site can be helpful, I have found numerous errors in the way that Google and Babelfish handles translations of certain words and phrases. I have sent error reports to them and e-mails about the problems as well. Context changes the outcome of the meanings of words and one cannot just string together equivalent strings and hope the meaning will be completely intelligible. Hopefully, they will correct at least some of these but only time will tell.

For record, I do not speak or write German well. I can read it but that is about it for now. One of these days I hope to change that and possibly become fluent in the language. But, until then, when I write to people in German and use these translation tools to help, I always apologize in advance and warn the recipient that I am using one of those resources so as to prevent offense when something does not translate across if I miss something. There have been times when I have been informed by the response that I was not understood and I had to try to reconstruct what I wrote and improve it in order to make better sense.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I have to confess, I am amzaed this thread has gone on for 19 pages, I guess the church really is false. Can we get to something more important?

[Mike Reed]

Don't know if this has already been pointed out, but the 1974 edition includes illustrations relevant to the discussions on this thread:

Hill Cumorah--North America

Monte Alban--Central America

Peru--South America