Book Of Mormon's Intro Changed

[Daniel Peterson]

Good change. Not unexpected.

Principal ancestors should never have been there.

It goes beyond the assertions of the Book of Mormon text itself.

I've been told, but can't verify the report, that more than one member of the old scripture committee argued that the phrase was problematic, but that it went in anyway.

[smac97]

Exactly. Because "principal" also means "most important", it is not a stumbling block in the DNA issue.

Well, it has certainly been a stumbling block for some. Take a look at the various quotes I have provided where the "principal ancestors" language from the Introduction is used as a springboard into an attack on the Church.

Fascinating. Particularly this bit: The change "takes into account details of Book of Mormon demography which are not known," LDS spokesman Mark Tuttle said Wednesday."

Barney does not officially represent the Church.

Barney isn't being quoted. "LDS spokesman Mark Tuttle" is being quoted.

BCSpace has recently asserted.....that the Introduction is part of the scriptural canon.

He still does and has provided far stronger evidence for than any of you have against.

He has provided no evidence whatsoever.

The Introduction is not a part of the scriptural text. It is not canonized. It has never been canonized. You have provided no evidence in support of your assertion to the contrary.

-Smac

[gtaggart]

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.

Whatever the critics's charge, it will include the word "cover-up."

[spinner]

What if, purely hypothetically speaking, another 25 years from now new DNA evidence or other evidence shows a very high probability Semitic peoples actually were the primary ancestors of the indigenous people of America. Would they then put that wording back in? Would that change how you think about how inspired Bruce R. McKonkie was in 1981? Would it change what you think about how inspired this current revision is?

Line upon line, precept upon precept. Our understanding of God continues to change. This is precisely WHY we need a living Prophet. So I have no doubt that there are many things yet to be revealed!

If you don't believe in continuing revelation, how can you believe in the Church?

I'm not sure that you exactly answered the question. If the scenario I hypothesize above did come to pass, how would that change your answer about the level of inspiration involved in this current change? In Bruce McKonkie's original wording?

[The_Monk]

In Bruce McKonkie's original wording?

Pedantery warning! Pedantery warning!

His name is McConkie with two cees, not a k. I find your lack of spelling disturbing.

(Sorry for the pedantery. But spelling it McKonkie reminds me too much of, cough, another board, cough cough, which likes to spell Elder Packer's middle initial with 3 k's instead of one. )

[Aurelia Rozella]

Line upon line, precept upon precept. Our understanding of God continues to change. This is precisely WHY we need a living Prophet. So I have no doubt that there are many things yet to be revealed!

If you don't believe in continuing revelation, how can you believe in the Church?

I'm not sure that you exactly answered the question. If the scenario I hypothesize above did come to pass, how would that change your answer about the level of inspiration involved in this current change? In Bruce McKonkie's original wording?

This is a strawman argument. What if the Lord reveals that the practice of polygamy is to be reinstated? What if, what if.

Either you have faith in the Lord, and His prophet or you don't. The Church is guided by inspired men. They have been inspired to make this clarification. Should the Lord direct further clarification (and I'm sure He will), I will be eternally grateful, and I will follow them.

[LifeOnaPlate]

What if, purely hypothetically speaking, another 25 years from now new DNA evidence or other evidence shows a very high probability Semitic peoples actually were the primary ancestors of the indigenous people of America. Would they then put that wording back in? Would that change how you think about how inspired Bruce R. McKonkie was in 1981? Would it change what you think about how inspired this current revision is?

No, because Semetic doesn't equal Lamanite.

[spinner]

This is a strawman argument. What if the Lord reveals that the practice of polygamy is to be reinstated? What if, what if.

Either you have faith in the Lord, and His prophet or you don't. The Church is guided by inspired men. They have been inspired to make this clarification. Should the Lord direct further clarification (and I'm sure He will), I will be eternally grateful, and I will follow them.

A hypothetical is not the same thing as a straw man. http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logica...llacy/Straw_man

My point is that you seem to be having tunnel vision here. You rejoice in the 'clarification'. So why was this change made? You effuse about how wonderful the change is but you won't address the fact that the same system that brought you the change produced this previous problematic wording, and I find your unwillingness to address my question revealing.

[spinner]

Pedantery warning! Pedantery warning!

His name is McConkie with two cees, not a k. I find your lack of spelling disturbing.

(Sorry for the pedantery. But spelling it McKonkie reminds me too much of, cough, another board, cough cough, which likes to spell Elder Packer's middle initial with 3 k's instead of one. )

Won't make that mistake again.

[BCSpace]

Exactly. Because "principal" also means "most important", it is not a stumbling block in the DNA issue.

Well, it has certainly been a stumbling block for some. Take a look at the various quotes I have provided where the "principal ancestors" language from the Introduction is used as a springboard into an attack on the Church.

I wouldn't dance to that tune if I were you. I'd simply pull out the dictionary. Unfortunately, now the critics will have two tunes play instead of one.

Fascinating. Particularly this bit: The change "takes into account details of Book of Mormon demography which are not known," LDS spokesman Mark Tuttle said Wednesday."

Barney does not officially represent the Church.

Barney isn't being quoted. "LDS spokesman Mark Tuttle" is being quoted.

Barney was being quoted. You simply snipped his comment out of my quote to build a strawman.

BCSpace has recently asserted.....that the Introduction is part of the scriptural canon.

He still does and has provided far stronger evidence for than any of you have against.

He has provided no evidence whatsoever.

I am quite confident that I have (I notice several others chimmed into that thread with even more evidence) and am quite content to let my words stand.

[The Dude]

I agree with the person who said the "principal ancestor" language should have never been there -- because even in Bruce R's day there were significant reasons to think Native Americans "principally" derived from Asia thousands of years before the BoM time period. But that wasn't enough for the fundamentalists who wrote the introduction. It took people like Murphy and Southerton to bring this about, several decades late. I see it as an official response to their DNA arguments (even if they were partially wrong, especially in the case of Murphy). Very good.

edit for punctuation

[spinner]

Infallibility by any other name would be just as wrong.

Note 1: Principal doesn't and hasn't ever meant "sole." "Flat wrong" is a hostile and extreme reading.

Note 2: McConkie himself thought there were others in the land. (I believe I learned this from one of his biographies, probably the Dennis Horne volume, but I could be wrong as to the source.)

Note 3: McConkie himself has pointed out that the things that appeared in the 1979/1981 edition of the scriptures were not to be taken as official or revealed positions or statements. See Sermons and Writings of Bruce R. McConkie, 289-90.

Note 4: McConkie himself never claimed infallibility. Quite the opposite. Two quick examples - his talk "Are the General Authorities Human?" (an emphatic yes) and this statement from MD under Prophets. "With all their inspiration and greatness, prophets are yet mortal men with imperfections common to mankind in general. They have their opinions and prejudices and are left to work out their own problems without inspiration in many instances."

Sorry I don't have time to respond in more depth but it's already past 1 AM in my hemisphere and I've got to sleep soon. I understand that nobody believes McConkie or anybody else to have been infallible. But at the same time I don't think that anybody would doubt that the 1981 scriptures were pored over in great detail by the very highest level of church authorities, at all times sincerely seeking inspiration. I find the fact that something stuck at the very front of the cornerstone of the Mormon religion (even this portion itself was not canonical) would still contain an error and that it took 26 years to fix that error. This is not a spelling error or a bit of bad syntax, it is something that has created considerable confusion, at least for some people. It consfused me back when I believed. If it is an error (or even merely misleading) it seems problematic that it made it in in the first place.

[BCSpace]

I find the fact that something stuck at the very front of the cornerstone of the Mormon religion (even this portion itself was not canonical) would still contain an error and that it took 26 years to fix that error.

How is it an error, even now? Assuming current DNA thinking to be a big issue which contradicts LDS claims (it doesn't) why 26 years and not 3 or 4? Typical anti sensationalism.

[LoudmouthMormon]

So what about Bruce R. McKonkie? Was he flat wrong when he wrote that introduction?

Shocking notion, I know.

[USU78]

As a native American, I find this change even more racially offensive.......it's the major reason why I have such a burning hatred of mormonism. I look forward to the day when this cult theology is in the dust bin of history....

Let me add my voice to those welcoming JVT hither.

What tribe, may one ask?

USU "Avec nous il n'y a jamais de probleme" 78

[SolarPowered]

So what about Bruce R. McKonkie? Was he flat wrong when he wrote that introduction?

It's not the first time that McConkie has been "flat wrong." He's done excellent work on a lot of subjects, but has had to be corrected on a major blunder here and there.

As others have already written, McConkie himself didn't claim to be infallible.

I've been told, but can't verify the report, that more than one member of the old scripture committee argued that the phrase was problematic, but that it went in anyway.

That's quite interesting. That says a great deal about how the Introduction came to be in the first place, and about how we should balance the relative contributions of "divine revelation" vs. "scholarly work product."

(Edit: In response to Smac's comments, below, I want to clarify that "That" in the preceeding paragraph refers to "Prof. Peterson's description of the workings of the committee that vetted the Introduction for the 1981 edition of the BoM.")

[Luigi]

From the SL Trib, http://www.sltrib.com/ci_7403990. The article is not too bad for the SL Trib. Our own Kevin Barney also is quoted as well.

The word change is welcomed by me. While the introduction is not scripture, I am happy to see that the word "principal" has been replaced, so that the phrase reads "and they are among the ancestors of the American Indian".

I think my testimony is coming back! No wait, that burning in the chest is heartburn, never mind. But seriously I've never been that concerned with the DNA/ancestory issue. In fact if I had to list reasons I stopped believing this would be at the bottom of the list.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Let me add my voice to those welcoming JVT hither.

What tribe, may one ask?

USU "Avec nous il n'y a jamais de probleme" 78

He got banned to fast.

[smac97]

It took people like Murphy and Southerton to bring this about, several decades late.

I sort of agree. Murphy and Southerton were making mountains out of this little molehill. And making a slight alteration to the non-canonical Introduction is, in reality, no big deal. And that slight alteration essentially undermines a whole slew of criticisms based upon it.

I see it as an official response to their DNA arguments (even if they were partially wrong, especially in the case of Murphy).

Perhaps you are correct to some extent.

-Smac

[smac97]

That's quite interesting. That says a great deal about how the Introduction came to be in the first place, and about how we should balance the relative contributions of "divine revelation" vs. "scholarly work product."

The Introduction has never been presented as revelation, so it doesn't say a great deal" after all.

-Smac

[maupayman]

WEll since the intro was an addition to the BoM, haveing to change it to be more correct isnt bad at all. I would have serious issues if it were actually in 1st nephi or something.

haven't there been over 3000 changes to internal BoM verses, including ones in 1st Nephi?

[SolarPowered]

The Introduction has never been presented as revelation, so it doesn't say a great deal" after all.

-Smac

I think it does say a great deal, because there clearly are a lot of people out there who are of the mistaken impression that the Introduction is somehow revealed scripture. Prof. Peterson's comment shows that it was ultimately the result of a committee that was less than unanimous regarding its content.

Indeed, as you say, the Introduction has never been presented as revelation, but some (BCSpace comes to mind) are still of the belief that the Introduction is canonized scripture. Prof. Peterson's comment, in my opinion, demolishes that misunderstanding.

[BCSpace]

Indeed, the Introduction has never been presented as revelation, but some (BCSpace comes to mind) are still of the belief that the Introduction is canonized scripture.

Because of it's presentation yes. It is de facto canon. I can see it's going to take some people a long time to understand cause and effect.

[juliann]

There are few things more amusing that watching years of howling over how awful something is...and then watching the shock and dismay from the same group when it is corrected.

[why me]

Whatever the critics's charge, it will include the word "cover-up."

It began a week ago. The critics were having a field day with this one. It seems that our countermo friend John Larsen read the MAAD thread and posted the information about the word change on an exer board. You should have seen them cheering and hooting. All saw it as validation that the church isn't true. It gave them a real high.