Book Of Mormon's Intro Changed

[cksalmon]

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.

I think I understand your position. You think the change strengthens the argument for BoM historicity precisely because it moves the answer further from the realm of objective anthropology and further into the realm of subjective spiritual confirmation? Is that what you're suggesting?

CKS

[MormonMason]

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

To clarify, these were only in missionary editions, not the general edition or printings themselves. Also, you are forgetting the gold plates of Darius--Persia. Yet, the Book of Mormon material was not in any sense trying to say that the Book of Mormon took place in Persia. The place that mentions Cumorah only stated that this is where the plates were found, not that this was the place of the final battles. I am sure that there were those who likely thought that the inclusion of color photos of cool stuff from places all over the world meant that the Book of Mormon must have had something to do with these artifacts, though, which likely is the reason why this stopped shortly after 1978.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I think I understand your position. You think the change strengthens the argument for BoM historicity precisely because it moves the answer further from the realm of objective anthropology and further into the realm of subjective spiritual confirmation? Is that what you're suggesting?

CKS

Are you suggesting the Book of Mormon itself suggests otherwise?

[Moriancumer]

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?

Bro. Solar,

IMHO, here are several references where it's implied:

1 Ne 13:10-12, 30-31, 34

1 Ne 15: 13-14

1 Ne 22:7-8

2 Ne 30:3-4

Enos 1:13

3 Ne 21:7

Mormon 5:10,15

Mormon 7:1-10

D&C 3:18

It would seem to me that a somewhat homogeneous group of descendants of Lehi are being addressed here.

The following scriptures are more to the point:

D&C 28: 8-9, 14

D&C 30: 6

D&C 32: 2

D&C 54: 7-8

The Lord clearly refers to the Native Americans on the Missouri Frontier of the 1830s as Lamanities & even Jews. Can you see why it would be easy to side with Bruce R. McConkie (and the rest of the committee) and assume that such were principally (51%) Lehite/Mulekite by lineage?

Flame suit on.

-M

[Mike Reed]

To clarify, these were only in missionary editions, not the general edition or printings themselves. Also, you are forgetting the gold plates of Darius--Persia. Yet, the Book of Mormon material was not in any sense trying to say that the Book of Mormon took place in Persia. The place that mentions Cumorah only stated that this is where the plates were found, not that this was the place of the final battles. I am sure that there were those who likely thought that the inclusion of color photos of cool stuff from places all over the world meant that the Book of Mormon must have had something to do with these artifacts, though, which likely is the reason why this stopped shortly after 1978.

Could you please explain the rationale behind the inclusion of the Peru textiles?

"Textiles from Peru, dated from the Book of Mormon period."

[cksalmon]

Are you suggesting the Book of Mormon itself suggests otherwise?

Other than what, exactly? You're going to have to be more specific here.

CKS

[Moriancumer]

Why do you think I put babelfish in quotes in another post? I knew where you got it...

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.

Mason,

I was busy entering my response, didn't see your reply with the babelfish reference until after I posted mine(check the time stamps).

I took German for two years in high school, went there on my mission and minored in German at USU when I returned. That doesn't make me an expert in the German Language, but "Main Ancestors" is what I came up with on my own- it's honestly the first thing that popped into my head when I read "Hauptvorfahren". I only offered up the babelfish translation because I figured that would be the best place to go (from the perspective of common reference) for confirmation (didn't want you to take my word for it).

-M

P.S. It's a trivial thing, but it would be interesting to see how other translations handled the word "principal" in the BoM intro. Anyone?

EDIT:

Almost forgot, I served as a German Linguist (Translation,Interpretation) in the UTNG for six years and have been back to Germany a half-dozen times since my mission there 15 years ago. Still, I'm not claiming to be an expert on the language though....

[LifeOnaPlate]

Other than what, exactly? You're going to have to be more specific here.

CKS

Ok, no problem. You said:

You think the change strengthens the argument for BoM historicity precisely because it moves the answer further from the realm of objective anthropology and further into the realm of subjective spiritual confirmation?

My response is: when did the teachings of the Book of Mormon (Let's include Christianity and see what we get) ever say to depend on archaeological evidence as the foundation of faith in the Bible or Book of Mormon?

[SolarPowered]

Bro. Solar,

IMHO, here are several references where it's implied:

1 Ne 13:10-12, 30-31, 34

1 Ne 15: 13-14

1 Ne 22:7-8

2 Ne 30:3-4

Enos 1:13

3 Ne 21:7

Mormon 5:10,15

Mormon 7:1-10

D&C 3:18

It would seem to me that a somewhat homogeneous group of descendants of Lehi are being addressed here.

The following scriptures are more to the point:

D&C 28: 8-9, 14

D&C 30: 6

D&C 32: 2

D&C 54: 7-8

The Lord clearly refers to the Native Americans on the Missouri Frontier of the 1830s as Lamanities & even Jews. Can you see why it would be easy to side with Bruce R. McConkie (and the rest of the committee) and assume that such were principally (51%) Lehite/Mulekite by lineage?

Flame suit on.

-M

Unless I missed it, there is nothing in any of the scriptures you cite that imples that the American Indians are 51% or more Lehite and/or Mulekite. All of them are quite congruent with the idea that the Lehites and Mulekite are "among" the ancestors of the Amerian Indians.

(BTW, kudos for the effort you put in to attempt to answer the CFR.)

[SolarPowered]

Could you please explain the rationale behind the inclusion of the Peru textiles?

"Textiles from Peru, dated from the Book of Mormon period."

I can't answer for MM, but, if I were the putting together a mission edition, I would look for any colorful pictures I could find that appear, in my mind, to be connected to the BoM peoples. Textiles tend to be colorful, and if they came from the BoM period, would serve well to make the book more visually interesting.

[Moriancumer]

Unless I missed it, there is nothing in any of the scriptures you cite that imples that the American Indians are 51% or more Lehite and/or Mulekite. All of them are quite congruent with the idea that the Lehites and Mulekite are "among" the ancestors of the Amerian Indians.

(BTW, kudos for the effort you put in to attempt to answer the CFR.)

Bro. Solar,

Thanks. "51%" is my interpretation of course. But if the Lord Himself calls them Lamanities/Jews, how can one not believe that they must be mostly of Israelite descent? I can't think of anywhere else in the scriptures He refers to a population by an ancestry of which they are not. I could be wrong though, that's why I came here for help.

Your final statement is correct. But "principal" is correct as well, I still see no need for the change except as an attempt to silence critics of the Church.

-M

[cksalmon]

Ok, no problem. You said:

My response is: when did the teachings of the Book of Mormon (Let's include Christianity and see what we get) ever say to depend on archaeological evidence as the foundation of faith in the Bible or Book of Mormon?

Well, we can't just, for the sake of argument, equate BoM with Christianity. I don't--even if you do.

So you're asking, I suppose, whether or not BoM itself suggests that "we should depend upon archaeological evidence as the foundation of faith in ... the Book of Mormon?"

I never said that.

What I did say was that the change renders the playing field much more ambiguous and less disconfirmable. It poses for critics a notoriously difficult task. As, I suspect, it was meant to do.

That's what I said.

I really don't know what you're saying, if it's not that BoM never recommends objective data as an important piece of the historical puzzle. Of course, it doesn't. How could it when the internal evidence of BoM geographical considerations lends itself, depending upon the scholars one consults to a Mesoamerican background, a North American background, or a Malay background? The name of the game is "correlation," rather than justifiable evidence for a singular conclusion based on objective evidence.

Again, I didn't posit that BoM itself suggests that we consult objective anthropological data to discover its truthfulness. You win, in that straw-mannish case. But, of course, that's not what I posited.

BoM itself suggests that one must gain a spiritual witness of its truthfulness, with or without reference to objective anthropological data. Per BoM, its truthfulness has very little to do with objective data. I never suggested otherwise.

CKS

PS. If I've misunderstood your point, please clarify.

[MormonMason]

Could you please explain the rationale behind the inclusion of the Peru textiles?

"Textiles from Peru, dated from the Book of Mormon period."

I can't really explain the rationale behind putting that picture in their except to make a point to the effect that the ancient americans made pretty textiles and that if they could do it it is plausible for Book of Mormon peoples to be making fine textiles like the Book of Mormon said. I think, if the text had said, "these textiles made by Book of Mormon peoples, etc.", or something to that effect, you might have been able to make your case. But the fact is, there are also items from Persia there, too. The tools are not even given a location. My personal feeling, however, is that all these things were put in the missionary editions for the purpose of saying, "Hey, look here! Ancient peoples did cool things and made cool stuff. The Book of Mormon says its people made cool stuff: the book's claims are plausible because other cool stuff has been found in Persia and in the Americas."

I do not see it as maintaining any sort of view as to the locations of Book of Mormon events, especially since the Church had long before taken the official stance that we do not know the precise locations and dimensions of Book of Mormon lands.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Well, we can't just, for the sake of argument, equate BoM with Christianity. I don't--even if you do.

I was just going to see if you'd scrutinize Christianity the way you understand it n a similar way you scrutinize the Book of Mormon.

So you're asking, I suppose, whether or not BoM itself suggests that "we should depend upon archaeological evidence as the foundation of faith in ... the Book of Mormon?"

I never said that.

Good.

What I did say was that the change renders the playing field much more ambiguous and less disconfirmable. It poses for critics a notoriously difficult task. As, I suspect, it was meant to do.

That's what I said.

Does the change adequately represent what the Book of Mormon text ITSELF says?

Again, I didn't posit that BoM itself suggests that we consult objective anthropological data to discover its truthfulness. You win, in that straw-mannish case. But, of course, that's not what I posited.

Again, was just making sure you were applying the same reasoning to your own faith. Additionally, you might not care that the Intro was never canonical. Others do.

BoM itself suggests that one must gain a spiritual witness of its truthfulness, with or without reference to objective anthropological data. Per BoM, its truthfulness has very little to do with objective data. I never suggested otherwise.

Excellent. Then it seems to be an issue largely with the Introduction.

[MormonMason]

Almost forgot, I served as a German Linguist (Translation,Interpretation) in the UTNG for six years and have been back to Germany a half-dozen times since my mission there 15 years ago. Still, I'm not claiming to be an expert on the language though....

Good. Then you should know the true, literal meaning and semantic range of "Haupt..." and the literal meaning of the word Haupt. You should know full well that it means "head" and that it carries the same semantic range of English principal. Here is the dictionary entry for the word Principal in a printed dictionary from the time period of the Introduction. Note definition 1.

Here is a dictionary entry from the time period when Bruce R. McConkie was growing up and went to school:

I left the full semantic range in the first entry in the interest of fairness but, noting definition 1, this is more likely the meaning that Bruce R. McConkie intended when he wrote what he did, and it would seem that the primary definition did not change from since the time he learned to write English in High School.

It carries the same semantic range of the German "Haupt..." and it is highly unlikely that it would have taken any meaning other than the English intended, which is along the lines of definition 1, when it was translated into the form in which the Introduction was when translated into German. This is why it is important to look at not only the root meanings of words but how they are used in context of other words and wordforms. Your position is severely weakened by the evidence, however.

By the way, I already mentioned the translation of the Greek translation of the Introduction and Book of Mormon above in the thread (but did not give the Greek text itself, although I could), and someone else provided both Spanish and English translation above as well.

[Pahoran]

Mason,

I was busy entering my response, didn't see your reply with the babelfish reference until after I posted mine(check the time stamps).

I took German for two years in high school, went there on my mission and minored in German at USU when I returned. That doesn't make me an expert in the German Language, but "Main Ancestors" is what I came up with on my own- it's honestly the first thing that popped into my head when I read "Hauptvorfahren". I only offered up the babelfish translation because I figured that would be the best place to go (from the perspective of common reference) for confirmation (didn't want you to take my word for it).

-M

P.S. It's a trivial thing, but it would be interesting to see how other translations handled the word "principal" in the BoM intro. Anyone?

EDIT:

Almost forgot, I served as a German Linguist (Translation,Interpretation) in the UTNG for six years and have been back to Germany a half-dozen times since my mission there 15 years ago. Still, I'm not claiming to be an expert on the language though....

Never mind. I'm happy to accept that you understand German.

And you also understand that the original language of the Introduction was English.

And you must further understand that a translation from English into German, then retranslated into English, is not determinative of the meaning of the original English text, right? The retranslation is nothing more authoritative than a paraphrase of a paraphrase. How is the meaning best recovered: by retranslating a translation, or by native English speakers examining the English original?

Think it over.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mike Reed]

I can't really explain the rationale behind putting that picture in their except to make a point to the effect that the ancient americans made pretty textiles and that if they could do it it is plausible for Book of Mormon peoples to be making fine textiles like the Book of Mormon said. I think, if the text had said, "these textiles made by Book of Mormon peoples, etc.", or something to that effect, you might have been able to make your case. But the fact is, there are also items from Persia there, too. The tools are not even given a location. My personal feeling, however, is that all these things were put in the missionary editions for the purpose of saying, "Hey, look here! Ancient peoples did cool things and made cool stuff. The Book of Mormon says its people made cool stuff: the book's claims are plausible because other cool stuff has been found in Persia and in the Americas."

When discerning the rationale behind the picture... I think we should put it in the light of the thoughts displayed in quotes such as these:

Elder Joseph Fielding Smith of the Council of the Twelve , Improvement Era 1920

You see, right here, if you believe in the Book of Mormon, that the very evidence that he presents is his own refution. We who accept the word of the Lord in the Book of Mormon, know that at one time the ancestors of these degraded people in Brazil were highly cultured. But these descendants today are among the lowest of mankind. I would like to call your attention to an article which I prepared for the Improvement Era for April, 1919, in which is portrayed the former greatness of the inhabitants of Peru. When the Spaniards invaded that land, they found a people who were without a written language, whose former glory and greatness had departed. And yet, in that land evidence is still to be seen of a former civilization that in many respects surpassed that of Babylon and the ancient empires of the east.

Improvement Era 1921

Ferdinand Montesinos, writing the ancient history of Peru, says "that nation was originated by a people led by four brothers, the youngest of these brothers assumed authority and became the first of a long line of sovereigns." This tradition, quoted by Montesinos, may be considered to accord with Book of Mormon history, wherein we learn that four brothers, Laman, Lemuel, Sam and Nephi came to America with their parents and a few others, from Palestine, fleeing from the persecution to which they, in common with Jews generally, were subjected during King Zedekiah's reign, in the year 600 B. C.

Melvin J. Ballard of the Council of the Twelve, Improvement Era 1927

When were these temples built? Some have speculated that eight thousand years ago marks the period of this civilization. It is generally conceded, however, that the same skill is shown in the building of temples found in Central America and Mexico as those which I have described up in Peru and Bolivia, and they were no doubt built by the same people. In a book published last year, under the title of The City of the Sacred Well, [this book is named on the Reading Course list this year, see Era, July, 1927], by Mr. Willard, is given the story of our American Ambassador Mr. Thompson and his explorations at Chichen-Itza, Yucatan. Mr. Thompson describes the temples of that section and claims to have so fully deciphered the dates upon the stones of the entrances of these temples that he gives the year 113 B.C. as the date that appears over the entrance way to one of these temples, and another date, 47 after Christ, and another, 160 A.D. If he is correct, he is contributing very much to settle a disputed question, and if his figures are at all accurate, they point to a period that would correspond very nearly with that in which the Book of Mormon describes the building of these temples and the period of their glorious civilization.

Melvin J. Ballard of the Council of the Twelve , Improvement Era 1927

In the museum at Lima, Peru, Brother Pratt and myself saw in a show case armsful of golden vessels that were taken out of these ancient ruins, and in one case we saw sheets of gold about eight inches long by seven inches wide and very thin, thinner than tin. The stack was about an inch thick. There were no inscriptions upon them, but they were nearly like the plates Joseph Smith describes having been delivered to him a hundred years ago upon which were inscribed in Egyptian characters the story of these ancients. When one realizes that they had gold in abundance, that they knew how to work it, they knew that it would not tarnish, they had the skill to write, not only on soft gold, but they wrote also in hard stone, one is led to believe the reasonableness of Joseph Smith's story that the records were made upon gold plates of which they had an abundance, and upon which they had the ability to write.

Andrew Jenson Assistant Church Historian, Improvement Era 1928

Having been a student of the Book of Mormon since my early boyhood, and always possessing a desire to see and hear for myself of things which, in many instances, others had seen and heard before me, I was much pleased with the opportunity I had in 1921 to visit the more central provinces of Old Mexico, and in visiting the republics of Peru and Bolivia in South America in 1923. And after seeing what I witnessed during my travels in these countries, and connecting my own experiences with what I had read, and am still reading, I have concluded that instead of there being a lack of evidence that such peoples as the Book of Mormon describes inhabited the western world in ancient days, there is almost too much proof, or, in other words, there are so many ruins of temples, fortified cities, great canal systems, fine roads, etc., that the student is mystified, or, in other words, we begin to wonder if the Jaredites and Nephites lived long enough, and were numerous enough in America to erect such cities and monumental buildings which are evidenced by the very interesting ruins found in different parts of the country today. The archaeologists who have studied the Aztec civilization of Old Mexico are almost unanimous in saying that a people possessed of a higher civilization than the Aztec once dwelt in Mexico, and when they call this "pre-historic" people Toltecs, we Book of Mormon students at once conclude that the Toltecs were either Nephites or Jaredites, or perhaps both. The same condition exists in Peru and Bolivia, (South America), and while the students of archaeology agree that the Inca nation possessed great ability in building temples, cities, canals, roads, etc., there are some things so artistic and superior in the ruins of Cuzco, the ancient capital of Peru, that it points back to a civilization of a higher type and of a more ancient date than the Inca period, and thus again the thoughts of the Book of Mormon student revert back to that people of very ancient date who attempted to build the Tower of Babel in the great valley of the Euphrates, and they can readily believe that a part of these great builders in Asia, after migrating to the western continent, led by the brother of Jared, and others, could, and naturally would, apply their skill as builders by erecting temples, and building walled cities in their new home. Suffice it to say, that, by my travels in South America, I became more convinced than ever that the Book of Mormon is true; and while I was disappointed in not becoming better established on a geographical basis regarding the Jaredite and Nephite countries, I was fully satisfied with what I saw in the elevated valleys of Peru and Bolivia, and elsewhere, that such peoples as those of which the Book of Mormon gives record once dwelt in that land, and that the civilization which was superior to that attributed to the Incas, when the Spaniards first found them, must be credited to what the archaeologists call the pre-Inca races.

Improvement Era 1928

Book of Mormon evidence. At the international congress of Americanists in New York, September 17, 1928, Professor A. L. Kroeber of the University of California, traced the cultural relations of the Indians of North and South America through archaeological remains. He showed that two ancient civilizations consisted, not directly connected, and that their centers were in Mexico-Guatemala and in Peru. In the intervening regions he found evidences of a civilization common to both areas. The inference is, he said, that the cultural peaks of Mexico and Peru are on the whole not specifically inter-connected but are localized developments; out of a common cultural soil, due to unusual density of population, or possibly broader political organization. This is a splendid statement of what is at present known, through archaeological evidence, of the ancient history of America. It is, substantially, also the picture presented to us in the Book of Mormon, with its two civilizations, the Jaredite and the Lehite.

B. H. Roberts, New Witnesses for God, 3 vols., 2:, p.448

It will be observed that thus far, in dealing with American antiquities, I have said nothing concerning Peru and the monuments of its civilization. Still, as Book of Mormon peoples inhabited South America as well as North America, some attention should be paid to the monuments of Peruvian civilization. For the general description of South American antiquities I find what Professor Baldwin says to be most acceptable:

B. H. Roberts, New Witnesses for God, 3 vols., 2:, p.450 - 451

First: Lamanites who remained in the far south paid more attention to civilized pursuits than has usually been accredited to them, and the remarks of the Book of Mormon concerning the Lamanites being an idle people, living upon the fruits of the chase, and their marauding excursions into Nephite lands are to be more especially applied to those Lamanites more immediately in contact with the Nephites, while further southward they were pursuing the arts of peace. Or, second: that after the fall of the Nephites at Cumorah there were strong colonies of Lamanites that pushed their way through Central America down into Peru, subdued the inhabitants who had remained there and established themselves as the ruling class, constituting, in fact, the invasion of the Incas, under whom arose the monuments of civilization found in the land by the Spaniards when they invaded it. The difference between the monuments found in Peru and those found in Mexico and Central America arises, in my judgment, from the fact that there was not present in South America the monuments of the great Jaredite civilization to crop up through and become intermingled with the Nephite and Lamanite monuments of civilization.

B. H. Roberts, New Witnesses for God, 3 vols., 2:, p.498

In the traditional account of how the first Inca and his sister-wife were directed to Peru, one may see the distorted account of this Book of Mormon fact. The tradition is thus related by Prescott:

Milton R. Hunter, Archaeology and the Book of Mormon, p.29

Following the apostasy of the Nephites and the Lamanites from the true religion of the Master and the extermination of the Nephite civilization (about A.D. 400), the Lamanites or Indians retained in their traditions a memory of the appearance of the resurrected Savior to their forefathers. When the Spanish Catholic padres, the French missionaries, and the English explorers first visited the numerous American aborigines throughout the Western Hemisphere, they found traditions among practically every Indian tribe, especially the more civilized peoples of Peru, Central America, Guatemala, Yucatan, and Mexico, to the effect that their ancestors had been visited by a "White Bearded God," who had given them their culture, their civilization, and their religion, and had promised them that some day he would return to their descendants. These traditions account for the easy conquest of Mexico and Peru by the Spaniards; but more important, they all bear witness to Christ's appearance to the ancient Americans, as delineated so vividly in the Book of Mormon.

Milton R. Hunter, Christ in Ancient America, p.222

Certainly to find a baptismal font at Pachacamac, Peru, is not surprising nor out of line with what one could expect to find in American archaeological ruins. As has been pointed out, the inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere in ancient times, the Nephites, had the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is a well-known fact that one of the most important ordinances of that gospel as they practiced it was the rite of baptism by immersion. Nephi and other Book of Mormon prophets taught the people the doctrine of baptism. The ancient record describes Alma performing this ordinance in the Waters of Mormon. Furthermore, when Christ appeared to the inhabitants of the New World following his resurrection, he gave the twelve men whom he commissioned to preside over his Church specific instructions regarding how to baptize, and he commanded them to practice the rite after his departure.

Milton R. Hunter, Archaeology and the Book of Mormon, p.29

Throughout Mexico the "White Bearded God" was known by the name of Quetzalcoatl (Ket-sal-co-watl). In Yucatan he was called Kukulcan (Koo-kul-con). Viracocha (Vera-kocha) was the name given to him by the Indians of Peru; and other Indian tribes called him by various names. By whatever name he appeared in Indian traditions, he always had the same characteristics, and there was a general agreement in the various traditions regarding his accomplishments. Those people who are familiar with the teachings of the Book of Mormon and Indian traditions can readily recognize the Fair God of ancient America as being none other than Jesus Christ.

Elder Andrew Jenson, Conference Report, October 1923, Third Dayâ??Morning Session, p.128

It is also recorded in the Book of Mormon that the Savior, after his resurrection, appeared to the Nephites in "the temple in the Land Bountiful." We do not know how many more temples were erected by them. On my recent visit to South America, I saw a number of temple ruins, and I could not help thinking that perhaps I stood face to face with some of the walls and temple ruins which had been erected by the God-fearing Nephites over 2,000 years ago. Of course, I have no way of proving that these temples were erected by the Nephites, but such was my first thought when I saw the remnants of the temple of the sun in Cuzco, Peru, and other temple ruins elsewhere.

Elder Rey L. Pratt, Conference Report, April 1929, Afternoon Meeting, p.71 - 72

It has been my good pleasure, my brethren and sisters, to travel a very great deal in Book of Mormon lands, and it would have been strange indeed if I had not taken some interest and had I not found some things that to me are evidences of the divine authenticity of that book. I have not been among those who have tried to place or locate certain cities, or even definitely certain lands; but I have read in the Book of Mormon of a mighty civilization that has existed upon this continent in the remote past-the Jaredite, civilization, preceding even the Nephite civilization. I have read in the Book of Mormon of their spreading out upon the face of the whole land. I have read about the wonderful buildings they have left, the wonderful temples that they have erected, the extent of their great cities. I have studied about the materials used in the construction of those cities; and it has been my happy pleasure, my brethren and sisters, to see verily demonstrated before me the fact that there has lived in the remote ast upon this continent a civilization that exceeded in every way that found even by the Spanish conquerors in Mexico and by the Spanish conquerors in Peru, who conquered the most highly civilized nations found here by European conquerors.

Elder Rey L. Pratt, Conference Report, April 1929, Afternoon Meeting, p.72 - 73

I have seen many things that demonstrate to me that the Book of Mormon is true. It is not a difficult thing for me to believe in inscriptions on plates of gold. When Brother Ballard and I were returning from South America we had the opportunity of going ashore at Lima, Peru, the capital of the Peruvian government. There we had access to a national museum where a great collection had been made, which was being housed in new quarters that were not open to the public. We secured entrance, through the good offices of our ambassador to that country, and after witnessing many archaeological wonders we came to a glass case that was perfects, filled with gold ornaments. There were cups and candlesticks seemingly, of very curious workmanship. They were wonderful indeed. They were a few of the great things that had been left after the cupidity of the Spanish conquerors had robbed that country of all the gold that could be found, but yet some was left behind. After examining through the glass case many of the objects, or attention was attracted to a pile of gold leaf in one corner. As near as I could calculate its dimensions, it was about the same size as our Juvenile Instructor, and the pile was about as high as half a dozen Juveniles. The thickness of the leaves, it seemed to me, was similar to the outside cover of that magazine. They were of pure gold leaf. All you would need to do would be to insert a ring through the edges of them to have a set of plates that would contain at least as much as we have in the abridgment of the Book of Mormon that was brought to us through the instrumentality of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Franklin S. Harris, Jr., The Book of Mormon: Message and Evidences, 2nd. ed, p.147

The Book of Mormon and the Bible tell that Christ wept when greatly moved. Viracocha, in Peru at Tiahuanaco was represented with tears coursing down the cheeks, which has resulted in his being called the Weeping God of Tiahuanaco In the artistic representation, Kukulcan is usually shown with teardrops under the eyelids.

George Reynolds and Janne M. Sjodahl, Commentary on the Book of Mormon, edited and arranged by Philip C. Reynolds, 7 vols., 3:, p.329

When perusing the Book of Mormon we have inclined to the opinion that before the time of the Crucifixion of Christ, the Andes and other ranges of mountains existed in a much more modified form than at present. We have been led to this conclusion from the fact that no high mountains or stretches of rugged mountain country such as at present exist in Chile, Peru, Ecuador, and the United States of Columbia, are even suggested by the narrative. Individual hills such as we have drawn attention to are occasionally mentioned, showing that the country was of diversified altitude; but we have little or nothing to lead our minds to the contemplation of the stupendous peaks and everlasting hills that characterize this region nowadays. It is also somewhat singular that no reference is made to any rivers in the regions where the Orinoco and Amazon Rivers now course in their vast volume to the Atlantic Ocean. Our only answer is that the Book of Mormon is primarily a religious record, that the geographical and topographical references are only incidental, and consequently no special importance can be placed on what is not mentioned. Perhaps, also, these rivers, as suggested in the case of the Sidon, ran in different channels, and with possibly less volume of water then than now.

George Reynolds and Janne M. Sjodahl, Commentary on the Book of Mormon, edited and arranged by Philip C. Reynolds, 7 vols., 6:, p.154 - 155

A people blessed by the Lord. This verse indicates the religious character of the people. Prescott, Peru, Volume 1, p. 85, observes that the originals or aborigines, of America, notwithstanding many superstitions, had attained to the sublime conception of a Great Spirit, the Creator of the Universe, Who was not to be dishonored by visible representation. Students of what is generally known as prehistoric America need the Book of Mormon to explain such facts as these.

Franklin S. Harris, Jr., The Book of Mormon: Message and Evidences, 2nd. ed, p.107

More striking, Elders Melvin J. Ballard and Rey L. Pratt, in the museum in Lima, Peru, saw a stack of gold sheets almost identical in size with the Book of Mormon sheets, about seven by eight inches and thin as paper. The whole stack was nearly an inch thick, not a character on either side, but just gold sheets as though ready for a scribe to write.

Bruce R. McConkie, The Millennial Messiah: The Second Coming of the Son of Man, p.209

These Lamanites, even in the days of the colonizing and settling of the Americas by the Gentiles, shall continue to be driven and slaughtered. In the United States, in Mexico, in Peru, in Uruguay, and in every place from one end of the Americas to the other, the sword of vengeance has spilled the blood of Father Lehi's children. "And behold, the Lord hath reserved their blessings, which they might have received in the land, for the Gentiles who shall possess the land," Mormon continues. "But behold, it shall come to pass that they shall be driven and scattered by the Gentiles; and after they have been driven and scattered by the Gentiles, behold, then will the Lord remember the covenant which he made unto Abraham and unto all the house of Israel." (Morm. 5:15-20.)

Now about McConkie. After considering what McConkie wrote in the above quote, what do you think he really meant in the BoM intro? It seems probable to me that he wouldn't have had the LGT in mind. Do you agree?

I do not see it as maintaining any sort of view as to the locations of Book of Mormon events, especially since the Church had long before taken the official stance that we do not know the precise locations and dimensions of Book of Mormon lands.

This thread has grown quickly, and I confess that I haven't read it entirely. I don't know if you (or somebody else) already covered this... so if you have, forgive me... but what exactly did the Church say when taking their "official stance"?

[Moriancumer]

Good. Then you should know the true, literal meaning and semantic range of "Haupt..." and the literal meaning of the word Haupt. You should know full well that it means "head" and that it carries the same semantic range of English principal.

MM,

Yes. Let me see if I can attempt to put the two perspectives (mine, "A" and your's "B") into context:

A. Principal (adj) 1. First or highest as in rank or value 2. Occupying the first place or rank, chief in character, degree or importance, essential.

In this case, when translated into German, Hauptvorfahren would best be understood as "Main ancestors". Descriptors like "highest in value", "chief in character, degree", etc. would lead one to believe that the Native Americans are predominantly descendants of BoM peoples, with a lessor amount of Trans-Siberian immigrant ancestry.

B. Principal (n) 1. Chief or head. 2. Person with leading part. 3. Chief in Authority.

Here we have "principal" being used as a noun. In this perspective, most Native Americans could trace their geneology back to at least one BoM (Israelite) ancestor, whether to Lehi or a Mulekite- perhaps the most important ancestor of their lineage (in terms of what, I don't know- blessings I guess). "Hauptvorfahren" could be understood here as "Head Ancestor". However, the compound word makes "Haupt" an adjective ("Vorfahren" is the noun, all nouns are always capitalized in German BTW). I believe if you were to translate, for example, "Adam is the head of my ancestors." into German you might say "Adam ist der Haupt meiner Vorfahren" not "Adam ist miener Hauptvorfahrer", which would mean "main ancestor". However, I could be wrong on this and would welcome the input of a native speaker.

Either way, they could've left "principal" in the introduction. I guess if that one word was a stumbling block to a few converts then it was a good idea to remove it. Hopefully they'd have a strong enough testimony as they progress to be able to stomach the Native Americans in the D&C being referred to as Lamanites and Jews. Some will take that literally. Others will take it subjectively as in they are adopted into the house of Israel and promised the same blessings as the Lamanites.

-M

Never mind. I'm happy to accept that you understand German.

And you also understand that the original language of the Introduction was English.

And you must further understand that a translation from English into German, then retranslated into English, is not determinative of the meaning of the original English text, right? The retranslation is nothing more authoritative than a paraphrase of a paraphrase. How is the meaning best recovered: by retranslating a translation, or by native English speakers examining the English original?

Think it over.

Regards,

Pahoran

P,

Yes. Seems rather silly when you put that way. Someone else asked the question a few pages back, I was just obliging with an answer. It's just interesting to see how others interpreted the word "principal" when under the influence of the spirit to translate a scriptural text (the introduction to such not being scriptural, but still). It will be more interesting to see how the introductions of these foreign language editions of the BoM will be modifed in the years to come because of this change.

-M

[MormonMason]

When discerning the rationale behind the picture... I think we should put it in the light of the thoughts displayed in quotes such as these:

...

A collection of quotes is irrelevant to this particular discussion. Why? Simply because we have been discussing the phrase "... and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians" and its meaning. Whether or not many members of the Church held a HGT worldview or not is irrelevant to that question in the long run. From what I understand, even though Elder McConkie may have believed in HGT, he by no means believed that all American Indians had only the Lamanites as their ancestors.

Additionally, this above interpretation you give of the rationale does not explain the existence of a picture of gold plates from Persia in there as well. My explanation of the rationale explains the presence of all the pictures, including the one from Persia.

Now about McConkie. After considering what McConkie wrote in the above quote, what do you think he really meant in the BoM intro? It seems probable to me that he wouldn't have had the LGT in mind. Do you agree?

Whether or not Elder McConkie held an HGT worldview and belief or even some semblance of an LGT of sorts does not alter or interpret the meaning and intent of the original 1981 preface. The second he put the word principal there, he clearly indicated his view that the Lamanites were not the only ancestors of the American Indians. If he had worded it "...and they are the ancestors of the American Indians" you and the other critics might have had some degree of a case regarding the Introduction. But you do not. The Introduction is clear that, in spite of what his thoughts may have been with respect to geography, he held that the Lamanites were not the only ancestors of the American Indians. Period.

This thread has grown quickly, and I confess that I haven't read it entirely. I don't know if you (or somebody else) already covered this... so if you have, forgive me... but what exactly did the Church say when taking their "official stance"?

The official stance of the Church on Book of Mormon Geography is that it has no official stance on the subject except to say that the Book of Mormon events took place in the somewhere in the Americas but does not take an official stance as to where. A number of people have asked for comment as to locations and such and the leaders of the Church have in each instance stated that the Church and its leadership does not take an official stance on the subject. This has been mentioned by George Q. Cannon and Anthony Ivins, and is mentioned in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism in brief, as well as in a couple other publications written by other leaders of the Church. I do not now have access to the original articles in Church publications where the statements of members of the First Presidency and others are contained, so cannot quote those in their entirety. Partial quotes of the material can be found scattered all over the internet.

I remember even seeing maps handed out in Seminary decades ago that contained a similar disclaimer in fine print. But, in case you have doubts as to the truthfulness of what I have thus far written, I am sure it would not be a difficult thing for you to contact Church headquarters yourself and ask the Church's official stance on Book of Mormon Geography. Then, you will get the chance to hear it for yourself. When and if you do, please share the response with others here so they, too, may share your good fortune in hearing it for yourself. And, this is for posterity, so, please...be honest.

[SolarPowered]

When discerning the rationale behind the picture... I think we should put it in the light of the thoughts displayed in quotes such as these:

[etc.]

Mike, I'm a little dense today. Could you summarize in a line or three what the point is that you're trying to make here? That many members of the Church have read the Book of Mormon, seen "narrow neck", "the land northward" and "the land southward", made the obvious identification with "Isthmus of Panama", "North America" and "South America", and never reconsidered that basic assumption, is not seriously in question here.

And in the context of a limited geographic model of the BoM, there still is no reason to think that the seed of Lehi would not have diffused throughtout North and South America by this point in time. Nor that elements of the Nephite culture would not diffuse into cultures throughout the Americas.

Could you please summarize what you're trying to point out in your above dissertation?

[MormonMason]

...

Either way, they could've left "principal" in the introduction. I guess if that one word was a stumbling block to a few converts then it was a good idea to remove it. Hopefully they'd have a strong enough testimony as they progress to be able to stomach the Native Americans in the D&C being referred to as Lamanites and Jews. Some will take that literally. Others will take it subjectively as in they are adopted into the house of Israel and promised the same blessings as the Lamanites.

...

Yes, they could have left the word there. Yes, it was a stumblingblock and a point of contention. Regardless, however, the presence of the word made it clear that the Lamanites were not the only ancestors of the American Indians. Changing "they are the principal ancestors" to "they are among the ancestors" effectively shuts down this contention and makes even clearer that not all the ancestors of the American Indians were Lamanites.

Either way, the Introduction never bothered me and does not bother me now. Had it once said "...and they are the ancestors of the American Indians," I might have been bothered by it. But, it has never been worded that way and no official introduction of the Book of Mormon of which I am aware has ever stated such. In point of fact, the English editions of the Book of Mormon had no introduction at all from 1840 to 1980.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I hadn't considered that McConkie's intro, by default, implies other peoples in America.

[MormonMason]

I hadn't considered that McConkie's intro, by default, implies other peoples in America.

Don't feel bad. A lot of people did not understand that, which is one of the reasons why it had to go. The main idea behind an Introduction is to introduce people to something in the text which s/he is about to read. If the Introduction is not clear enough, it needs revision. This is exactly what it got.

[MormonMason]

...

Yes. Let me see if I can attempt to put the two perspectives (mine, "A" and your's "B") into context:

...

Actually, just as "haupt..." becomes the adjective of the compound word, the same thing occurs with the word Principal. It takes the function of an adjective that modifies a noun. Thus, English principal takes the adjectival sense meaning most important.

That alone slaughters the claim that it represents a majority of ancestry. But, as I have said, this word combination had caused so much confusion and musunderstanding of what is not known and what is unknowable in our present state of knowledge that changing principal ancestors to among the ancestors is the only logical thing to do.

[LifeOnaPlate]

If the Introduction is not clear enough, it needs revision. This is exactly what it got.

I had considered that.