Book Of Mormon's Intro Changed

[Mike Reed]

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

Poor ol' McKonkie sure hasn't had the best of luck with his published material.

I guess thatâ??s what he gets for promoting the ideas that the prophets of the past have taught. If only he believed in the prophet ALIVE TODAY. Oh wait... Hinckey wasn't the Prophet then. Never mind...

[why me]

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.

I agree. But what also needs to be remembered is that when a weakened lds person discovers the exmember site, they can be led down the yellow brick road very easily. The exmembers were having a field day with the change because they see it as a lds come down and a new validation for their exmo beliefs.

[MormonMason]

...

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.

Agreed. The same can be said of many of other churches and their use of the Bible. We often take likening the scriptures too far and impose what we understand onto the text and run with what we think the passages say rather than what they actually do same in some instances. I think it is a good thing that we do not have creeds in the sense that evangelicals and others have them. We then are free to arrive at the meaning via latter-day revelation without stepping all over the creeds that would have locked us into an untenable doctrinal position.

[MormonMason]

I myself am anxiously awaiting the new edition of the Book of Mormon that is coming in a few years. What will the critics say when this edition agrees with the manuscripts and with editions edited by Joseph Smith himself more accurately than has any edition of the past? We will rejoice in a more accurate Book of Mormon and they will continue to talk about all the changes from the First Edition (even though the First Edition itself did not then agree with the manuscripts and each copy of the First Edition reads differently from the next in at least one place or another!) and how long it took for us to get the Book of Mormon to that point.

As I said, were it not for us reaching for a more accurate text, what would such people as complain do with all the time they would have on their hands?

[why me]

Poor ol' McKonkie sure hasn't had the best of luck with his published material.

I guess that’s what he gets for promoting the ideas that the prophets of the past have taught. If only he believed in the prophet ALIVE TODAY. Oh wait... Hinckey wasn't the Prophet then. Never mind...

This post Mike shows that you have very little understanding of the debate about BOM geography that has been ongoing for quite a few decades. It may be true that the hemispheric model held sway during McConkie's time but the limited geographical model was also out there. And because there was a debate, only shows that BOM geography was not doctrine.

Now of course, this does not prove the book false or for that matter invalidate the 11 witnesses to the bom. But it does show, the lds church is not shy of changing their position on issues that are not doctrine.

[why me]

The whole hooting and howling on the exboard is quite interesting. I think that someone should tell them that the introduction was added in 1981 and has not been a part of earlier editions of the book of mormon.

To hear their celebration I can get the impression that the intro was written by JS.

[LoudmouthMormon]

Hi Aurelia, I hope you don't mind if I don't participate in the intergenerational mudslinging going on in this thread, and just talk to you.

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).

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.

You've got the concept right, but the term wrong. I would ask you to consider the difference between a "continent" (which is what you assume your scriptures mean), and "land" (which is the word the scriptures actually use).

I own land. 5 1/2 acres to be exact. If too many people showed up, it would be overrun, and there would be no place for my children. I have a title deed to this land. My kids are growing up and running all over the face of this land. Should they inherit it, I hope they will be bright enough not to lose this land due to financial mismanagement, so they can raise their families on this land forever. It's good land.

I do not own the continent. The continent has plenty of room. They have not run all over the continent.

Yes, President Kimball, and probably a bunch of other prophets, have assumed as you do - that when the BoM says "land", it means "continent". That's the thing about prophets - being one doesn't mean you are omniscient and fallible. It doesn't mean you have all the answers. You still get to make assumptions, and form beliefs in the absence of clear revelation. It may pain you to hear it, and you might choose to discount my take on things as the foibles of youth, but dang it, prophets can have incorrect notions about stuff.

Mind you, I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong. I'm saying my take on things is possible, plausible, and not offensive to gospel truth. You seem dead set against it being any of those things, and consider my opinion as flying against doctrine. All I'm asking is that you take a step back and see if I'm as obviously in the wrong as you think I am.

LM

[urroner]

Has the Lord ever given a prophet a prophecy and then not explain the prophecy to the prophet?

It seem to me that many of the early Christians, including the Apostles, believed that Christ was going to return in a short time. Were these Apostles rejected by God for doing so?

[Thinking]

God is currently revealing many plain and precious truths. He is correcting our misunderstanding of the story of the inhabitants of this continent.

This was no revelation by God. This was a discovery which happened by using the scientific method.

We were under the false assumption that Lamanites were pure descendants of Lehi, when in actuality there were other people previously living on the Americas.

And who provided that false assumption? The Tanners? RFM?

I thank the Lord for our living Prophet who guides us in these Latter Days.

True revelation would have been the change happening before scientists figured it out.

Would this change have taken place without the DNA controversy?

[Thinking]

The whole hooting and howling on the exboard is quite interesting. I think that someone should tell them that the introduction was added in 1981 and has not been a part of earlier editions of the book of mormon.

To hear their celebration I can get the impression that the intro was written by JS.

Who wrote it?

Bruce R. McConkie. Have you ever heard of him? I guess the brethren didn't pray about that part of the introduction.

[Moriancumer]

Hi. First post!

When I heard on the news last night that the church had caved on this one it made me sick to my stomach. I subscribe to most of the apologist theories, but have never felt comfortable by the whole "leaven" concept ("We propose that the children of Lehi are the leaven of the Abrahamic covenant in the New World, unlikely to be detected by genetic analysis of modern New World inhabitants."-J. Meldrum, 2003). In my studies of the BoM and DC, it is clear to me that the BoM Israelites are truly the "Principal" ancestors of the Native Americans. "Principal" does not mean "only", but I don't see how anyone can read the BoM and conclude that, given the means, the majority of Native Americans today could not trace their genealogy back to Jacob(Israel) through Lehi/Ishmael/their wives/the Mulekites. I won't bore you with scriptural citations to back-up this claim, if you've read the BoM & DC you know very well what I mean (ok...here's a couple D&C 32: 2 & 57:4).

It's the whole premise of the book- Small band of Israelites leave Jerusalem for the New World, older brothers rebel, family splits, younger brother starts a record which is passed down through the generations so that a gentile will translate it and eventually bring the descendents back into the fold. As a plus, this awesome story is a tool to convert many gentiles along the way, bringing them the Gospel of Jesus Christ too. Works for me!

I guess the really question is, why backpedal? Can't we just trust that when God separated the Lamanites form the Nephites he changed their DNA as well? 2 Nephi 5:23 even hints that he did:

"And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done. "

If God's power can part the Red Sea, deliver manna from heaven, help Nephi build a ship, lead a farm boy to translate an ancient record, and atone for my sins- then why can't he do a little thing like mixing up a few people's DNA because of their poor choices at the time? I guess that's not the apologist way.

P.S. Can you imagine if Southerton's study had revealed that Native American DNA was in fact Israelite? Wow, that would be like Pres. Hinckley calling a press conference and showing off the Golden Plates to the world. We wouldn't need much faith then, would we?

[Aurelia Rozella]

Hi. First post!

When I heard on the news last night that the church had caved on this one it made me sick to my stomach. I subscribe to most of the apologist theories, but have never felt comfortable by the whole "leaven" concept ("We propose that the children of Lehi are the leaven of the Abrahamic covenant in the New World, unlikely to be detected by genetic analysis of modern New World inhabitants."-J. Meldrum, 2003). In my studies of the BoM and DC, it is clear to me that the BoM Israelites are truly the "Principal" ancestors of the Native Americans. "Principal" does not mean "only", but I don't see how anyone can read the BoM and conclude that, given the means, the majority of Native Americans today could not trace their genealogy back to Jacob(Israel) through Lehi/Ishmael/their wives/the Mulekites. I won't bore you with scriptural citations to back-up this claim, if you've read the BoM & DC you know very well what I mean (ok...here's a couple D&C 32: 2 & 57:4).

It's the whole premise of the book- Small band of Israelites leave Jerusalem for the New World, older brothers rebel, family splits, younger brother starts a record which is passed down through the generations so that a gentile will translate it and eventually bring the descendents back into the fold. As a plus, this awesome story is a tool to convert many gentiles along the way, bringing them the Gospel of Jesus Christ too. Works for me!

I guess the really question is, why backpedal? Can't we just trust that when God separated the Lamanites form the Nephites he changed their DNA as well? 2 Nephi 5:23 even hints that he did:

"And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done. "

If God's power can part the Red Sea, deliver manna from heaven, help Nephi build a ship, lead a farm boy to translate an ancient record, and atone for my sins- then why can't he do a little thing like mixing up a few people's DNA because of their poor choices at the time? I guess that's not the apologist way.

P.S. Can you imagine if Southerton's study had revealed that Native American DNA was in fact Israelite? Wow, that would be like Pres. Hinckley calling a press conference and showing off the Golden Plates to the world. We wouldn't need much faith then, would we?

I too felt quesy. I came to this site for some reassurance, and got called a troll and was told that I spent my life believing in "twinkie" doctrine.

Good luck here Moriancumer, you may need it.

[thesometimesaint]

Moriancumer:

"Principle need not refer to only DNA. My idea is that is that "Principle" in this case is "Spiritual" rather than genetic.

There is no need for God to change the DNA suddenly(As in parting of the "Reed Sea"). Intermarriage and nearly three millennia will do it quite nicely.

[Lachoneus]

"Principle need not refer to only DNA. My idea is that is that "Principle" in this case is "Spiritual" rather than genetic.

Principle is not principal. Principal is not majority.

[ed2276]

I simply tire of defending the apologists on the internet. They do not always reflect my understanding of Church doctrine.

Which apologists have you defended? I have seen nothing but disdain from you for the "apologists" here and at FARMS. Realizing that all here have our own understandings and are here to share , discuss and/or defend them , for whatever worth others may find in those thoughts , please don't feel that you need defend anyone else's thoughts here to anyone elsewhere who may disagree with or reject a particular view expressed here.

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.

And this is where you seem , forgive me , quite the odd duck among members (if you are ideed LDS). No one here makes any pretension of speaking for the Church in official capacity. That you would feel so threatened by the mere expression of ideas that do not square with your "understanding of Church doctrine" that you would feel a need to go to your Bishop to ask him whether you must embrace apologists' understanding of Church doctrine or not also strikes me as odd. Something is not quite right here , IMO.

BTW , does your "understanding" of Church doctrine square up , in every particular , with your Bishop's understanding of Church doctrine?

If I am ever told that they are, I will respond appropriately. As for now, it is just a bunch of guys with an opinion that doesn't always agree with mine.

You will not be told that apologists are , and you know that...if you know anything about Church organization. Assuming that you do know about Church organization , this would seem to make your comment above a condescending jab aimed at LDS apologists. No one here , that I have seen , has ever told you that you must accept their views as Church doctrine nor have they asked you to defend them to others. As you can readily see , there are a variety of views here , both pro and con , about LDS doctrine and things that are not expressly doctrine , but are just topics of interest or theory. If you find such expressions , which don't measure up to your understanding of Church doctrine , make you uncomfortable such that you feel a need to seek reassurance from your Bishop then you might want to not visit with us here.

[Aurelia Rozella]

Which apologists have you defended? I have seen nothing but disdain from you for the "apologists" here and at FARMS. Realizing that all here have our own understandings and are here to share , discuss and/or defend them , for whatever worth others may find in those thoughts , please don't feel that you need defend anyone else's thoughts here to anyone elsewhere who may disagree with or reject a particular view expressed here.

And this is where you seem , forgive me , quite the odd duck among members (if you are ideed LDS). No one here makes any pretension of speaking for the Church in official capacity. That you would feel so threatened by the mere expression of ideas that do not square with your "understanding of Church doctrine" that you would feel a need to go to your Bishop to ask him whether you must embrace apologists' understanding of Church doctrine or not also strikes me as odd. Something is not quite right here , IMO.

BTW , does your "understanding" of Church doctrine square up , in every particular , with your Bishop's understanding of Church doctrine?

You will not be told that apologists are , and you know that...if you know anything about Church organization. Assuming that you do know about Church organization , this would seem to make your comment above a condescending jab aimed at LDS apologists. No one here , that I have seen , has ever told you that you must accept their views as Church doctrine nor have they asked you to defend them to others. As you can readily see , there are a variety of views here , both pro and con , about LDS doctrine and things that are not expressly doctrine , but are just topics of interest or theory. If you find such expressions , which don't measure up to your understanding of Church doctrine , make you uncomfortable such that you feel a need to seek reassurance from your Bishop then you might want to not visit with us here.

I can see that you discern by your intellect and not by the Spirit. Just as I thought.

(If you truly are LDS, you would know what I mean. Oh and this is sarcasm by the way)

[ed2276]

I can see that you discern by your intellect and not by the Spirit. Just as I thought.

(If you truly are LDS, you would know what I mean. Oh and this is sarcasm by the way)

Whatever.

[thesometimesaint]

Lachoneus:

My Patriarchal Blessing has me as from a tribe of Israel. It is genetically improbable for me to be that. My tribe painted themselves blue, worshiped trees, and fought the Romans in what was to become England nearly 2000 years ago.

[structurecop]

I can see that you discern by your intellect and not by the Spirit. Just as I thought.

(If you truly are LDS, you would know what I mean. Oh and this is sarcasm by the way)

*sniff, sniff* Is that banning I smell?

[ed2276]

Lachoneus:

My Patriarchal Blessing has me as from a tribe of Israel. It is genetically improbable for me to be that. My tribe painted themselves blue, worshiped trees, and fought the Romans in what was to become England nearly 2000 years ago.

Where did your folks come from more than 2000 years ago before they painted their faces blue , etc.?

[Aurelia Rozella]

*sniff, sniff* Is that banning I smell?

My time here is probably limited. I suppose you don't need to deal with a spiritual old fool like me. I understand.

[Lachoneus]

My Patriarchal Blessing has me as from a tribe of Israel. It is genetically improbable for me to be that. My tribe painted themselves blue, worshiped trees, and fought the Romans in what was to become England nearly 2000 years ago.

My post has no bearing on this issue. Patriarchal blessings are not limited to genetic lineages.

[structurecop]

My time here is probably limited. I suppose you don't need to deal with a spiritual old fool like me. I understand.

It has nothing do to with your spirituality and everything to do with your impersonation of an actual, believing member.

[Aurelia Rozella]

It has nothing do to with your spirituality and everything to do with your impersonation of an actual, believing member.

I often wondered if I could come on a site like this and talk about my feelings and concerns with what some call Internet-Mormons. There is a broad difference between the two.

Why do you assume I am not a member simply because I am not standing lock-step with this "change" in the introduction. Do you think all active LDS are simply going to accept and not question?

I was hoping that new light would be shed concerning perhaps new revelation, so that the changed information would make sense to me.

What I got instead was heaped-up abuse and name calling. I can see that the Lord is making it clear that the internet and apologetics is no place for me to be. I threatens my testimony.

[thesometimesaint]

ed2276:

Lost in history. That is why I said improbable, and not impossible. They probably came over from Europe some 700,000 years ago. Long before the Tribes of Israel even existed.