Book Of Mormon's Intro Changed

[SolarPowered]

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.

See?

[why me]

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.

I only discovered hooting and howling on a certain exer board. I saw the change as a clarification, nothing more. But perhap the lds church needs to give an explanation in a letter to the stakes and wards as their own clarification as to why a change was necessary.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

They have so little in the way of validation, they'll take their thrills where they can get them, I suppose, even if, all things considered, the supposed "validation" doesn't really amount to anything significant.

[smac97]

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.

Look again at the comment to which I was responding:

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."

There is no such balancing act in the Church of Jesus Christ. Revelation unquestionably trumps "scholarly work product."

The above comment, however, seems to imply that the Introduction "came to be" via "relative contributions" from both "divine revelation" and "scholarly work product."

But the Introduction has never been presented as having been formulated under "divine revelation," so the Introduction does not meaningfully contribute to the issue of "balanc[ing] the relative contributions of 'divine revelation' vs. 'scholarly work product.'"

That, plus the fact that there is no such balancing act, results in the conclusion that the change says "a great deal" about, well, anything.

Prof. Peterson's comment shows that it was ultimately the result of a committee that was less than unanimous regarding its content.

Right. A committee that never reached a universal consensus sounds like an exercise in "scholarly work product." But did that committee ever present the Introduction as the product of divine revelation? Nope. So the change to the Introduction does not have much to say about "divine revelation."

Indeed, as you say, the Introduction has never been presented as revelation,

Yes. So saying that a change to the Introduction-that-has-never-been-presented-as-revelation does not say "a great deal" to say about "'divine revelation' vs. 'scholarly work product.'" No such tension ("vs.") exists. No weighing one against the other exists (revelation always trumps).

Scholarly work product is useful when there is an absence of revelation. It may be useful in a subordinate role when attempting to understand some aspects of revealed truths. But it will never predominate over revelation. It will never be juxtaposed against ("vs.") revelation.

but some (BCSpace comes to mind) are still of the belief that the Introduction is canonized scripture.

And he happens to be wrong about that. But I wasn't speaking of errant beliefs. I was speaking of whether the change to the introduction "says a great deal about...how we should balance the relative contributions of 'divine revelation' vs. 'scholarly work product.'" The change says precisely nothing at all about this topic.

-Smac

[SolarPowered]

But I wasn't speaking of errant beliefs.

Smac,

I was in fact speaking about errant beliefs.

So the change to the Introduction does not have much to say about "divine revelation."

I was not speaking about what the change in the Introduction says or doesn't say. I was talking about Prof. Peterson's comments about the workings of the committee that produced the Introduction. (I was in fact unaware of this information before Prof. Peterson mentioned it, so his comment does indeed give me a lot of new information about how the Introduction came to be. Prior to recent threads on this subject, I had been under the impression that the Introduction had been added in the 1800's some time.)

[structurecop]

I was speaking of whether the change to the introduction "says a great deal about...how we should balance the relative contributions of 'divine revelation' vs. 'scholarly work product.'" The change says precisely nothing at all about this topic.

Perhaps it reinforces that those who are in positions to influence the beliefs of others should be more careful of how they present whether material is in fact "inspired" or if it is simply the result of some good guessing.

[MormonMason]

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

What about it? The introduction has been revised over and over again with each major edition. The Leaders of the Church simply did not consider the preface/introductory material to be inspired scripture or officially part of the open-ended canon of our scripture. What Bruce R. McConkie "flat wrong" in writing the introduction? I suppose that would depend upon what he meant by the word principal. I have virtually always understood it to mean "most important" rather than what many understood by it, namely, "most numerous." I suspect he meant the former rather than the latter. However, the word is one that easily leads to misunderstanding. So, the change, I feel (and so did the Brethren, for that matter), became necessary.

I remember as a missionary sitting in the MTC listening to a talk about what a terrific resource the different features of the scriptures that went into the 1981 version were. The speaker talked at length about what terrifically righteous and scripturally astute men these were, and how inspired they had been in the process of putting together the current version of the scriptures. I guess that despite all of that, we now are admitting that they messed it up a bit, huh?

Hey, they only are changing one word there. I'd say Bruce R. McConkie did pretty well at this point. At least what was done to his Mormon Doctrine before it could be published again is not being done here. It is only one word being changed for understanding's sake, in a portion of the book that was not considered scripture by the leaders of the Church. I guess the speaker must have been giving spiritual twinkies, eh?

While this change attempts to take the wind out of the sails of the DNA argument and a few other historically problematic claims, it spawns a new problem of casting doubt upon how inspired certain of these prophets were.

It only casts doubt if we hold the modern prophets and apostles in the light that fundamentalist evangelicals see prophets and apostles, some of who see inspiration and revelation from the Holy Ghost in Paul's instructions to bring the parchments and his cloak to him that he had left behind.

Since Latter-day Saints who know anything about the subject will not be bothered by this rather insignificant "change" in a text of an introducton that was not considered by the Brethren to be inspired scripture (and which has been changed repeatedly over the years since the Book of Mormon's first publication), who cares? Although, what you say likely will be a claim that the critics will make, just as they did the last times the introduction was changed/completely rewritten.

[MormonMason]

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....

Thankfully, you won't live to see that day....

[MormonMason]

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

Yes, this is something stupidly claimed but they fail to understand that a cover-up would be impossible and would require a recall of millions of copies of the Book of Mormon, replacing them all and destroying the originals. Isn't going to happen!

[cinepro]

Thankfully, you won't live to see that day....

Maybe not entirely, but depending on how old he is and whether he drives safely, he could be around long enough to see the Church totally abandon any teachings regarding modern literal descendancy from BoM peoples.

[MormonMason]

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.

...

Good! Many of them would probably lose their jobs if we did not give them something to write about. They need to be kept busy chasing their tails....

[cinepro]

Yes, this is something stupidly claimed but they fail to understand that a cover-up would be impossible and would require a recall of millions of copies of the Book of Mormon, replacing them all and destroying the originals. Isn't going to happen!

No, but if the wording is changed from here on out, within a generation or two the past wording will be forgotten and most future Church members will never know it was ever any different. There may even be some that continue to insist the BoM introduction is "scripture" or part of the "canon".

[LifeOnaPlate]

No, but if the wording is changed from here on out, within a generation or two the past wording will be forgotten and most future Church members will never know it was ever any different. There may even be some that continue to insist the BoM introduction is "scripture" or part of the "canon".

Or even care.

[Obiwan]

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

I remember as a missionary sitting in the MTC listening to a talk about what a terrific resource the different features of the scriptures that went into the 1981 version were. The speaker talked at length about what terrifically righteous and scripturally astute men these were, and how inspired they had been in the process of putting together the current version of the scriptures. I guess that despite all of that, we now are admitting that they messed it up a bit, huh?

While this change attempts to take the wind out of the sails of the DNA argument and a few other historically problematic claims, it spawns a new problem of casting doubt upon how inspired certain of these prophets were.

The introduction is still accurate, even if it wasn't changed.

Changing certain non-important things so less people are confused or irritated is usually a good thing, and has nothing to do with whether the Church is revising it's theology or anything else.

Most mormons always new that Lamanites weren't simply those decended from Laman & Lemual.

[MormonMason]

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

These are mostly grammatical in nature. There are only a handful of any modifications that might be considered significant in some circles, but these were penned by Joseph Smith himself originally for succeeding editions.

And...there will yet be more in coming days as parts of phrases and words that have been missing since the Book of Mormon was penned to manuscript, and that never made it into even the first edition, will be in the printed text at last where they belong.

All printed editions of the Book of Mormon of 1 Nephi 12:18: "...the word of the justice of the Eternal God..."

Original manuscript of the Book of Mormon: "...the sword of the justice of the Eternal God..."

Future editions of the Book of Mormon: "...the sword of the justice of the Eternal God..."

[MormonMason]

Maybe not entirely, but depending on how old he is and whether he drives safely, he could be around long enough to see the Church totally abandon any teachings regarding modern literal descendancy from BoM peoples.

People with hatred in their souls tend to live shorter lives, driving safely, or not. Those with such hatred in their souls tend to drive like idiots on the street, so, even there, the risks of not living to see the day are pretty high.

[MormonMason]

No, but if the wording is changed from here on out, within a generation or two the past wording will be forgotten and most future Church members will never know it was ever any different. There may even be some that continue to insist the BoM introduction is "scripture" or part of the "canon".

That would never happen in my family. I have and continue to teach my family concerning different editions of the Book of Mormon, and I instruct them always to keep their old copies of the scriptures for posterity's sake when the new editions come out. I myself have copies (whether originals or facsimilies) of all the major American Book of Mormon editions (1830, 1837, 1840, 1879, 1920, 1981 (plus the 1986 and 2006 printings)), and the new Doubleday Book of Mormon edition with the modified preface). I suspect that the same would be true in many others as well. But, point taken.

[urroner]

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

How many changes have there been in the KJV since it first came out in 1611? Weren't there wholesale deletion of some books found in the original KJV later?

[structurecop]

That would never happen in my family. I have and continue to teach my family concerning different editions of the Book of Mormon, and I instruct them always to keep their old copies of the scriptures for posterity's sake when the new editions come out. I myself have copies (whether originals or facsimilies) of all the major American Book of Mormon editions (1830, 1837, 1840, 1879, 1920, 1981 (plus the 1986 and 2006 printings)), and the new Doubleday Book of Mormon edition with the modified preface). I suspect that the same would be true in many others as well. But, point taken.

MM, what percentage of member families do you think emphasize the textual history of the Book of Mormon like you do?

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

What these folks obviously fail to recognize is that, if anything, the change in wording harms the cause of anti-Mormonism by undermining a favorite attack by critics, the one pertaining to DNA. It does so by removing any semblance of an official Church position endorsing the assumption of predominant Lamanite lineage in today's American Indians. Thus what, just a short time ago, was regarded as an avenue of attack that promised to shake the underpinnings of Mormonism and be a "Galileo moment," as it were, has now been utterly neutralized.

This should be regarded as good news for defenders of the faith.

The fact that anti-Mormons fail to recognize this feeds the impression that, as a whole, they have never been an overly bright bunch.

[Aurelia Rozella]

How many changes have there been in the KJV since it first came out in 1611? Weren't there wholesale deletion of some books found in the original KJV later?

I don't see how attacking the veracity of the KJV would actually HELP the case for the accuracy of the BOM. I have sturdied Bible history, it is fascinanting the way the Lord preserved the scriptures. God used specific people, in their own times and places to give us the Bible we have today. I really don't like it when the members of my Church denigrate the Bible.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't see how attacking the veracity of the KJV would actually HELP the case for the accuracy of the BOM. I have sturdied Bible history, it is fascinanting the way the Lord preserved the scriptures. God used specific people, in their own times and places to give us the Bible we have today. I really don't like it when the members of my Church denigrate the Bible.

I don't think it amounts to a denigration of the Bible so much as pointing out what a non-issue textual changes is. And that if you appreciate the Bible, you cannot consistently use textual changes as a weapon for condemning the Book of Mormon.

Am I making sense?

[Wizzle]

I found this talk (don't have the link handy, but you can get it at LDS.org):

"Our Paths Have Met Again", First Presidency Message, President Spencer Kimball (speaking as president, no less...), Ensign, December 1975

It contains numerous quotes and discussions of how the American Indians are the literal decendents of the Lamanites. He even mentions some existing American Indian tribes by name. He also includes Pacific Islanders as "Lamanites".

Clearly, SWK, in his official capacity as "prophet" and "president" believed and preached in a church publication that the American Indians and Pacific Islanders were decended from "lamanites". He doesn't use the words "principle ancestors", but it is clear that is what he believes.

A couple of quotes from that speach, and there were many others:

"For the Lord himself has chosen to call these people Lamanitesâ??all the mixed descendants of Father Lehi, and Ishmael, and Zoram, and Mulek, and others of the Book of Mormon record; all of the literal seed of the Lamanites"

"So, my appeal today is for the Lamanites, all the Lamanites, the Mexicans, the Polynesians, the Indians, to live the commandments of God and prove themselves worthy of this choice land."

I also found numerous D&C mentions of the American Indian tribes as being "Lamanite", which I can provide references for if you wish.

Are the American Indians that existed since Joseph Smiths time Lamanites or not? Clearly, SWK believed they were, and he said thus in an official capacity in an official forum.

Was President Kimball wrong in believing that the American Indians and Pacific Islanders are Lamanite? Are you saying that a prophet, speaking in an official capacity, in an official church publication, regarding a core belief of the mormon religion - - - he was wrong?

Can you see how this appears to be revisionism?

[SolarPowered]

I found this talk (don't have the link handy, but you can get it at LDS.org):

"Our Paths Have Met Again", First Presidency Message, President Spencer Kimball (speaking as president, no less...), Ensign, December 1975

It contains numerous quotes and discussions of how the American Indians are the literal decendents of the Lamanites. He even mentions some existing American Indian tribes by name. He also includes Pacific Islanders as "Lamanites".

Clearly, SWK, in his official capacity as "prophet" and "president" believed and preached in a church publication that the American Indians and Pacific Islanders were decended from "lamanites". He doesn't use the words "principle ancestors", but it is clear that is what he believes.

A couple of quotes from that speach, and there were many others:

"For the Lord himself has chosen to call these people Lamanitesâ??all the mixed descendants of Father Lehi, and Ishmael, and Zoram, and Mulek, and others of the Book of Mormon record; all of the literal seed of the Lamanites"

"So, my appeal today is for the Lamanites, all the Lamanites, the Mexicans, the Polynesians, the Indians, to live the commandments of God and prove themselves worthy of this choice land."

I also found numerous D&C mentions of the American Indian tribes as being "Lamanite", which I can provide references for if you wish.

Are the American Indians that existed since Joseph Smiths time Lamanites or not? Clearly, SWK believed they were, and he said thus in an official capacity in an official forum.

Was President Kimball wrong in believing that the American Indians and Pacific Islanders are Lamanite? Are you saying that a prophet, speaking in an official capacity, in an official church publication, regarding a core belief of the mormon religion - - - he was wrong?

Can you see how this appears to be revisionism?

I fail to see how anything you have written here has any connection whatsoever to the topic of the thread.

Was President Kimball wrong in believing that the American Indians and Pacific Islanders are Lamanite? Are you saying that a prophet, speaking in an official capacity, in an official church publication, regarding a core belief of the mormon religion - - - he was wrong?

Where in the world did you get the idea that anyone is saying that?

[Aurelia Rozella]

I don't think it amounts to a denigration of the Bible so much as pointing out what a non-issue textual changes is. And that if you appreciate the Bible, you cannot consistently use textual changes as a weapon for condemning the Book of Mormon.

Am I making sense?

On one hand we claim the BOM accuracy based upon the very fact that it came directly from God to Joseph Smith without human interference during the act of translation and compilation. When we then, turn around and admit there are errors (some of them quite erroneous and blatent) in the BOM, I think we give our detractors an inroad for attack.

Did the Lord reveal each precious word to Joseph Smith to record? Was Joseph careless? Why are we changing the scripture (unless of course it is being revealed to the Prophet that it must be changed). Joseph Smith documented each revelation and gave us the D&C. I wish the Prophet would give us a clear, recorded record when there is to be a revision of scripture, especially if it changes the clear meaning. Who, what, when, where and why.