Book Of Mormon's Intro Changed

[Scott Lloyd]

I simply tire of defending the apologists on the internet. They do not always reflect my understanding of Church doctrine. I've spoken to my Bishop about the need to fall in line with everything that is published on apologetic sites, and he said there is no need, that they aren't official spokesmen for the Church.

I think your bishop might have a problem with you fussing too much about textual changes to the Book of Mormon.

Just a hunch.

[Aurelia Rozella]

I think your bishop might have a problem with you making too much about textual changes to the Book of Mormon.

Just a hunch.

We didn't talk specifically about BOM changes. I already stated that there was a typo that caused me to believe that there would be some very significant changes about BOM topography.

I am not an apologist, and I obviously don't think like an apologist. I tend to read published Church magazines both old and new, and since my interest lays with geneology and the past (which I love by the way) I really, really hate to see change in fundamental doctrine.

I cringe at some of the things I read from apologists sites. They deny doctrine that I hold dear. I am an older woman, my grandparents were LDS and were born in the 1880's. Much of the doctrine that is now denied was taught to me at my grandmother and grandfather's knee. When I hear the "new and improved" stuff it seriously makes me question the faith of my fathers. I suspect I am not the only one that feels that way.

Apologists should take heed and be sensitive to the Spirit. Sometimes in our zeal to "prove" our own point of view, we harm the faith of others. I am here only to let you know what I feel, and what other of my Sisters have told me regarding the denial of our sacred teachings. It makes us look foolish. I don't think it is really helpful. As we age, we find ourselves getting more and more set in our ways and headstrong. All you computer-aged whippersnappers are likely to find that out someday.

[structurecop]

I am an older woman, my grandparents were LDS and were born in the 1880's.

Wow, for an older woman you sure are computer-savvy.

[Scott Lloyd]

Her name reminds me of Rollo Tomassi... but I don't want to start that conspiracy theory again.

Speaking of Rollo Tomasi, I just ran across a post from him on the "Mormon Discussions" forum on a thread regarding the change to the Book of Mormon intro. He said:

This is a monumental concession, imo. I feel bad for all those Native Americans who were proud to be "Lamanites."

Poor Rollo. He never could grasp the concept that belief in the limited geography theory or the presence of other indigenous peoples in the Americas does nothing to preclude a belief that all or virtually all Native Americans are descended from Lehi. So he doesn't need to feel bad at all.

Maybe somebody who's registered over there can tell him.

[Aurelia Rozella]

Wow, for an older woman you sure are computer-savvy.

I am not that savvy. I learned to use a computer to further my geneology work. I have joined some special interest chat groups (mostly other women) where my religion is often the topic. I have found that often when I state a doctrine (as I was taught) I see others directing me to apologetic websites or blogs as "proof" that my understanding is wrong. I don't see how I could have been an active member for almost 60 years, and gotten so many things wrong. One of which is lamanites and their ancestors. It is somewhat disarming to find out I've been wrong all my life. If the Prophet would explain to me how I was wrong instead of springing these small changes - it certainly would make my life simpler. Instead I am forced to find answers on sites like this one, about how those changes came about.

This is a relatively new "stance" for us old LDS gals.

[Scott Lloyd]

We didn't talk specifically about BOM changes. I already stated that there was a typo that caused me to believe that there would be some very significant changes about BOM topography.

I am not an apologist, and I obviously don't think like an apologist. I tend to read published Church magazines both old and new, and since my interest lays with geneology and the past (which I love by the way) I really, really hate to see change in fundamental doctrine.

I cringe at some of the things I read from apologists sites. They deny doctrine that I hold dear. I am an older woman, my grandparents were LDS and were born in the 1880's. Much of the doctrine that is now denied was taught to me at my grandmother and grandfather's knee. When I hear the "new and improved" stuff it seriously makes me question the faith of my fathers. I suspect I am not the only one that feels that way.

Apologists should take heed and be sensitive to the Spirit. Sometimes in our zeal to "prove" our own point of view, we harm the faith of others. I am here only to let you know what I feel, and what other of my Sisters have told me regarding the denial of our sacred teachings. It makes us look foolish. I don't think it is really helpful. As we age, we find ourselves getting more and more set in our ways and headstrong. All you computer-aged whippersnappers are likely to find that out someday.

Perhaps you can cite some examples of apologist sites denying doctrine that you hold dear. And, if you please, select something that is significant as it pertains to our salvation, not something like, say, the location of Hill Cumorah.

[SolarPowered]

I am not that savvy. I learned to use a computer to further my geneology work. I have joined some special interest chat groups (mostly other women) where my religion is often the topic. I have found that often when I state a doctrine (as I was taught) I see others directing me to apologetic websites or blogs as "proof" that my understanding is wrong. I don't see how I could have been an active member for almost 60 years, and gotten so many things wrong. One of which is lamanites and their ancestors. It is somewhat disarming to find out I've been wrong all my life. If the Prophet would explain to me how I was wrong instead of springing these small changes - it certainly would make my life simpler. Instead I am forced to find answers on sites like this one, about how those changes came about.

This is a relatively new "stance" for us old LDS gals.

So, what exactly do you think you were wrong about? I'm not aware that anything has changed regarding the Lamanites.

[Aurelia Rozella]

So, what exactly do you think you were wrong about? I'm not aware that anything has changed regarding the Lamanites.

Its been a slow change and a long time coming. The DNA studies seriously caused me to wonder what was going on. My father served a mission in Southern California -Spanish Speaking. His mission President was Spencer W. Kimball. He told me often of his service to the Lamanites. It was always my understanding and that of my co-Saints that Laman and Lemuel were the principal ancestors of the native Americans as well as the Polynesians.

There should be a sensitivity to those of us who were taught this. I can't believe you deny it, and call me a troll simply because I state what is true.

I am upset by this latest change. I will adapt, however. The Church is more dear to me than life itself. If this is the will of the Lord through direction to his Prophet, I am thankful for the increased knowledge. Yet if this is coming from a group of apologists who are embarrassed by DNA findings, I will be dissappointed.

[structurecop]

Yet if this is coming from a group of apologists who are embarrassed by DNA findings, I will be dissappointed.

Apologists can cause changes in the printing of the standard works? Wow, this is a new revelation. Well let me trot out my agenda and see if I can get it bound and printed too.

[T-Shirt]

I am not that savvy. I learned to use a computer to further my geneology work. I have joined some special interest chat groups (mostly other women) where my religion is often the topic. I have found that often when I state a doctrine (as I was taught) I see others directing me to apologetic websites or blogs as "proof" that my understanding is wrong. I don't see how I could have been an active member for almost 60 years, and gotten so many things wrong. One of which is lamanites and their ancestors. It is somewhat disarming to find out I've been wrong all my life. If the Prophet would explain to me how I was wrong instead of springing these small changes - it certainly would make my life simpler. Instead I am forced to find answers on sites like this one, about how those changes came about.

This is a relatively new "stance" for us old LDS gals.

This doesn't change the fact that all, or virtually all Native Americans are Lamanites. As a genealogist, you would, likely, know that with more than 2600 years having passed, Native Americans can have their primary ancestry originating in Asia while still being descendants of Lehi.

T-Shirt

[SolarPowered]

Its been a slow change and a long time coming. The DNA studies seriously caused me to wonder what was going on. My father served a mission in Southern California -Spanish Speaking. His mission President was Spencer W. Kimball. He told me often of his service to the Lamanites. It was always my understanding and that of my co-Saints that Laman and Lemuel were the principal ancestors of the native Americans as well as the Polynesians.

There should be a sensitivity to those of us who were taught this. I can't believe you deny it, and call me a troll simply because I state what is true.

I am upset by this latest change. I will adapt, however. The Church is more dear to me than life itself. If this is the will of the Lord through direction to his Prophet, I am thankful for the increased knowledge. Yet if this is coming from a group of apologists who are embarrassed by DNA findings, I will be dissappointed.

You didn't answer my question. What, exactly, do you think has changed about the Lamanites? There has not been any change about who is and isn't a Lamanite, which appears to be what you think happened.

[Aurelia Rozella]

This doesn't change the fact that all, or virtually all Native Americans are Lamanites. As a genealogist, you would, likely, know that with more than 2600 years having passed, Native Americans can have their primary ancestry originating in Asia while still being descendants of Lehi.

T-Shirt

Actually as a geneologist with 100% of my near ancestors coming from the British Isles, my Scandinavian DNA signature (going back to the time of Christ, as borne out by my previous geneology work) is still with me. I took part in the National Geographic genome study.

[Aurelia Rozella]

You didn't answer my question. What, exactly, do you think has changed about the Lamanites? There has not been any change about who is and isn't a Lamanite, which appears to be what you think happened.

To be blunt, I was taught and assumed that this continent was kept pure for the inhabitants coming from Israel (this is what the BOM says). It wasn't vastly populated (if at all populated) when Lehi brought his family here. We were taught and assumed that Nephi and his family were "protected" from interaction with other peoples, that the Lamanites were descended from Laman and Lemuel, that the Nephites were totally wiped out. I believed that the "princinpal" ancestors of the Lamanites were Hebrews.

[freakin a man]

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

The BOM still is way behind in the the number of changes that have occurred to the Bible.

[MormonMason]

Actually as a geneologist with 100% of my near ancestors coming from the British Isles, my Scandinavian DNA signature (going back to the time of Christ, as borne out by my previous geneology work) is still with me. I took part in the National Geographic genome study.

Glad to hear you still have your mtDNA lineage intact, being a woman and all. Things like that do not always work out, though. That is why Israelis all over the world cannot be linked to one another using mtDNA. There are too many differences between the lines to be of use for determining Jewish ancestry that way. Too many Jewish populations intermarried on first arrivals in the lands where they migrated before setting up "restrictions" on interfaith marriages.

The pattern is so widespread that it easily explains what might have happened in the Americas.

[MormonMason]

To be blunt, I was taught and assumed that this continent was kept pure for the inhabitants coming from Israel (this is what the BOM says). It wasn't vastly populated (if at all populated) when Lehi brought his family here. We were taught and assumed that Nephi and his family were "protected" from interaction with other peoples, that the Lamanites were descended from Laman and Lemuel, that the Nephites were totally wiped out. I believed that the "princinpal" ancestors of the Lamanites were Hebrews.

Sorry that you were fed twinkie doctrines based upon misunderstanding of what the Book of Mormon said about itself. It is not uncommon, though, so we forgive you.

[Aurelia Rozella]

Sorry that you were fed twinkie doctrines based upon misunderstanding of what the Book of Mormon said about itself. It is not uncommon, though, so we forgive you.

Here's a twinkie for you. I would seem that your interpretation is more accurate than either I, or my teachers could have possibly understood:

2 Nephi 1:8 And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.

9 Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a apromise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their einheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever.

[poulsenll]

To be blunt, I was taught and assumed that this continent was kept pure for the inhabitants coming from Israel (this is what the BOM says). It wasn't vastly populated (if at all populated) when Lehi brought his family here. We were taught and assumed that Nephi and his family were "protected" from interaction with other peoples, that the Lamanites were descended from Laman and Lemuel, that the Nephites were totally wiped out. I believed that the "princinpal" ancestors of the Lamanites were Hebrews.

Unfortunately, this concept was a direct outgrowth of the political doctrine of "Manifest Destiny". This doctrine, although preached by Puritans, became very popular about the same time the Gospel was restored. It was a common occurence among protestant churches of the day to use the Bible to justify this doctrine and the resulting treatment of the indiginous population. The early saints were not immune to the attraction of this concept and its support for the westward movement. It is not surprising that they saw the Book of Mormon as a God given revelation in support of this political philosophy or that it remained a popular interpretation of the Book of Mormon scripture even among many LDS till this day.

The change in the introduction, hopefully, will help to diminish the tendency to interpret the scripture to support what are essentially non doctrinal "Twinkie" feel good interpretations that have nothing to do with our salvation or God's work to bring to pass the eternal life of man.

If we have a firm testimony of the Restored Gospel, there is no need to labor over these minute changes in our understanding and interpretation of non essential but, sadly, pervasive misconcepts about the sciptures.

Larry P

[Aurelia Rozella]

Unfortunately, this concept was a direct outgrowth of the political doctrine of "Manifest Destiny". This doctrine, although preached by Puritans, became very popular about the same time the Gospel was restored. It was a common occurence among protestant churches of the day to use the Bible to justify this doctrine and the resulting treatment of the indiginous population. The early saints were not immune to the attraction of this concept and its support for the westward movement. It is not surprising that they saw the Book of Mormon as a God given revelation in support of this political philosophy or that it remained a popular interpretation of the Book of Mormon scripture even among many LDS till this day.

The change in the introduction, hopefully, will help to diminish the tendency to interpret the scripture to support what are essentially non doctrinal "Twinkie" feel good interpretations that have nothing to do with our salvation or God's work to bring to pass the eternal life of man.

If we have a firm testimony of the Restored Gospel, there is no need to labor over these minute changes in our understanding and interpretation of non essential but, sadly, pervasive misconcepts about the sciptures.

Larry P

Thanks poulsen, at least you didn't insult me too badly. It was a kind an thoughtful reply (except for the twinkie reference). I doubt if you are old enough to remember the Lamanite placement program, let alone the doctrine about the Lamanites' principal ancestors.

Thanks poulsen, at least you didn't insult me too badly. It was a kind an thoughtful reply (except for the twinkie reference). I doubt if you are old enough to remember the Lamanite placement program, let alone the doctrine about the Lamanites' principal ancestors.

I take that back. You are even more old timer than I. Or would that be alzheimer. That's a joke son.

[cksalmon]

There are few things more amusing that [1] watching years of howling over how awful something is...and [2] then watching the shock and dismay from the same group when it is corrected.

[1] The "howling" was over the fact that the traditional LDS position didn't reflect the scientific consensus of NA origins.

[2] I certainly feel neither shock nor dismay: I think the "correction" is an admission that the traditional LDS position didn't actually reflect reality.

What seems amusing is that you're highlighting that something was wrong (an assessment with which the critics agreed) and then suggesting that critics are dismayed that the mistake was, as you wrote, "corrected."

I surmise that those who are invested in the issue (not myself so much) will likely feel vindication--not dismay. Now, indeed, there may be some measure of shock that the LDS leadership has seen fit to correct BoM's introduction so as better to reflect the anthropological consensus regarding NA origins. But, dismay?

I don't think that's likely.

To which instances of "dismay" are you here referring?

CKS

[MormonMason]

Here's a twinkie for you. I would seem that your interpretation is more accurate than either I, or my teachers could have possibly understood:

2 Nephi 1:8 And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.

9 Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a apromise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their einheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever.

And, what was the promise predicated upon? Did they do it? No. While we are at it, perhaps you might want to consider what Mormon was talking about when he said the following:

I am Mormon, and a pure descendant of Lehi... (3 Nephi 5:20)

What could he possibly have meant if everybody there was a pure descendent of Lehi like the twinkie doctrinal interpretation of the Book of Mormon taught? Of what significance would such a remark be? It makes far more sense and would be more a matter of pride if there was some lineage-mixing going on even in the time of Mormon.

[Aurelia Rozella]

And, what was the promise predicated upon? Did they do it? No. While we are at it, perhaps you might want to consider what Mormon was talking about when he said the following:

What could he possibly have meant if everybody there was a pure descendent of Lehi like the twinkie doctrinal interpretation of the Book of Mormon taught? Of what significance would such a remark be? It makes far more sense and would be more a matter of pride if there was some lineage-mixing going on even in the time of Mormon.

I suppose it is now proper LDS etiquitte to call the teachings of Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, twinkies.

I guess I am too old to play with you apologetic folks, I must turn in now. I will pray for guidance.

ARM

[MormonMason]

I suppose it is now proper LDS etiquitte to call the teachings of Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, twinkies.

...

What is the difference between a pure descendent of Lehi and a descendent of Lehi? You never answered that question that is raised by the other questions I raised. Come to think of it, you did not answer the other questions.

But, notwithstanding, he may well have passed on a few twinkies in some places. Even the General Authorities themselves know full well that not everything they say and do is inspired. "A prophet is not always a prophet..." comes to mind. They themselves have so stated about themselves as well. There are about a dozen or so quotes from Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Joseph Fielding Smith, Hugh B. Brown, etc., on the tip of my tongue regarding this.

[The Dude]

[1] The "howling" was over the fact that the traditional LDS position didn't reflect the scientific consensus of NA origins.

[2] I certainly feel neither shock nor dismay: I think the "correction" is an admission that the traditional LDS position didn't actually reflect reality.

What seems amusing is that you're highlighting that something was wrong (an assessment with which the critics agreed) and then suggesting that critics are dismayed that the mistake was, as you wrote, "corrected."

I surmise that those who are invested in the issue (not myself so much) will likely feel vindication--not dismay. Now, indeed, there may be some measure of shock that the LDS leadership has seen fit to correct BoM's introduction so as better to reflect the anthropological consensus regarding NA origins. But, dismay?

I don't think that's likely.

To which instances of "dismay" are you here referring?

Thank you, CKS, for unpackaging Juliann's drive-by snarl and replying with something so worthwhile and agreeable. I hope Juliann doesn't respond.

[poulsenll]

Here's a twinkie for you. I would seem that your interpretation is more accurate than either I, or my teachers could have possibly understood:

2 Nephi 1:8 And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.

9 Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a apromise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their einheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever.

Unfortunately they did not keep the commandments. They lost the land of Lehi's inheritance that as noted in

Alma 22:28 Now, the more aidle part of the Lamanites lived in the wilderness, and dwelt in tents; and they were spread through the wilderness on the west, in the land of Nephi; yea, and also on the west of the land of Zarahemla, in the borders by the seashore, and on the west in the land of Nephi, in the place of their fathersâ?? first inheritance, and thus bordering along by the seashore.

was a limited area on the shore in the land of Nephi, not the entire continent as proposed by the doctrine of "Manifest Destiny". It was occupied by Lamanites, the nation that took it away from them in fulfillment of Lehi's prophecy.

We are too prone to impose our own meanings to words used in the scriptures without considering the way such words have been used in the scriptures. The Israelite "Land of Promise" was a limited area, not the entire old world. Even though it was limited in size it served to bless the whole world. In a similar manner the Land of Lehi's inheritance was limited in territory, but what happened there was destined to bless the entire world and especially the inhabitants of the Americas. As others have pointed out, after 1600 years all of the native Americans can be considered recipients of the blessings promised in the Title Page of the Book of Mormon.

Larry P