"principle Ancestors" Change A Decade Old?

[LDSBruin]

I just got out of a Stake Conference where Elder Clayton spoke. During the Q&A portion of the session, someone asked about the recent change to the Introduction. Elder Clayton said a few interesting things:

1. A committee consisting of apostles and some GAs looks over such issues.

2. The brethren have felt the correct understanding was "among the ancestors" for a long time (over a decade).

3. The change was first made in the Spanish BoM over a decade ago.

OK, for #3 I looked up the Introduction on the church website and as far as my limited Spanish can tell it definitely has "principal ancestors". So maybe he was confused? or there is another edition? or it was actually another language? Can anyone check on this?

Either way, #2 is an interesting statement.

Edit: spelling

[Freedom]

Since you were the only one who heard him, we will have to take your word for it. But i don't think any changes happen over night. I would think that any changes to such a document would be considered for a very long time.

[Wizzle]

He's lying for the lord.

[BCSpace]

The online English version still says "principle" as well so I think it only refers to paper publications. Obviously, it would be very simple to change it online.

[LDSBruin]

Since you were the only one who heard him, we will have to take your word for it. But i don't think any changes happen over night. I would think that any changes to such a document would be considered for a very long time.

Right. Obviously even if I were confirmed to be telling the truth (which I am) this is still just what Elder Clayton says.

I got quite excited when he said it, but was disappointed to find out the online Spanish edition doesn't have that wording. I was mostly hoping someone would check their own Spanish edition and perhaps find it, or maybe find it in another relatively recently reprinted edition for another language that maybe Elder Clayton confused with the Spanish edition. or maybe he was just confused in general.

Either way I wouldn't really be disappointed if he doesn't have the most up-to-date information on the situation since it really is a minor point in an eternal perspective.

[Zemah]

The online English version still says "principle" as well so I think it only refers to paper publications. Obviously, it would be very simple to change it online.

I guess I missed the controversy (if there is one). But what did the change entail? What is the full sentence?

[Pahoran]

He's lying for the lord.

You mean he's an anti-Mormon?

Regards,

Pahoran

[gtaggart]

I just got out of a Stake Conference where Elder Clayton spoke. During the Q&A portion of the session, someone asked about the recent change to the Introduction. Elder Clayton said a few interesting things:

1. A committee consisting of apostles and some GAs looks over such issues.

2. The brethren have felt the correct understanding was "among the ancestors" for a long time (over a decade).

3. The change was first made in the Spanish BoM over a decade ago.

OK, for #3 I looked up the Introduction on the church website and as far as my limited Spanish can tell it definitely has "principle ancestors". So maybe he was confused? or there is another edition? or it was actually another language? Can anyone check on this?

Either way, #2 is an interesting statement.

I have a 1993 edition of the Spanish Book of Mormon. The intro refers to the Lamanites as the principle ancestors. Elder Clayton apparently has his facts wrong or mixed up, assuming you've quoted him correctly.

[The Nehor]

I have a 1993 edition of the Spanish Book of Mormon. The intro refers to the Lamanites as the principle ancestors. Elder Clayton apparently has his facts wrong or mixed up, assuming you've quoted him correctly.

Over a decade ago could mean any time before 1997.

[Moon Quaker]

The Lord's ways sure are mysterious. Had the Lord simply given an impression to President Kimball back in 1981 to reject BRM's wording in the intro, this whole issue would have been nipped in the bud long ago. Why the Lord likes throwing wrenches into his already-full-of-wrenches church is beyond me.

[Pahoran]

The Lord's ways sure are mysterious. Had the Lord simply given an impression to President Kimball back in 1981 to reject BRM's wording in the intro, this whole issue would have been nipped in the bud long ago. Why the Lord likes throwing wrenches into his already-full-of-wrenches church is beyond me.

MQ,

the fact that your avatar sports what you have yourself admitted is a non-wrench demonstrates that you are having a hard time finding any actual wrenches with which to mock the Church of Jesus Christ. Thus, it is hard to credit your claim to believe the Church to be "already-full-of-wrenches" when in fact you have difficulty producing an authentic one.

This is further demonstrated by your characterising the "principal [note the spelling] ancestors" phrase as a "wrench." It is not. It is a gnat.

And we all know who strains at gnats.

Regards,

Pahoran

[urroner]

MQ,

the fact that your avatar sports what you have yourself admitted is a non-wrench demonstrates that you are having a hard time finding any actual wrenches with which to mock the Church of Jesus Christ. Thus, it is hard to credit your claim to believe the Church to be "already-full-of-wrenches" when in fact you have difficulty producing an authentic one.

This is further demonstrated by your characterising the "principal [note the spelling] ancestors" phrase as a "wrench." It is not. It is a gnat.

And we all know who strains at gnats.

Regards,

Pahoran

Oh great P-man from down under, listen to my word, learn from it, but rejoice with great humility. The word is "STRAWMAN." Now you are wise.

Besides, Q-man wasn't thinking of wrenches, he was thinking of wenches. Our church is full of wenches, but he would still be wrong.

[Moon Quaker]

MQ,

the fact that your avatar sports what you have yourself admitted is a non-wrench demonstrates that you are having a hard time finding any actual wrenches with which to mock the Church of Jesus Christ. Thus, it is hard to credit your claim to believe the Church to be "already-full-of-wrenches" when in fact you have difficulty producing an authentic one.

This is further demonstrated by your characterising the "principal [note the spelling] ancestors" phrase as a "wrench." It is not. It is a gnat.

And we all know who strains at gnats.

Regards,

Pahoran

You misread me; allow me to clarify. I honestly don't give a rat's behind about the change. I'm not straining at this gnat (I'll leave that to others.) But regardless of whether this change is a gnat or not, it has created controversy, period. It's this controversial attention (undue or not) that I'm addressing (not the usage of "principal." I appreciate your correct spelling, too. I was wondering why so many can't spell right.)

All I was saying was that had the good ol' Lord nipped this problem in the bud, there would be no controversy amongst the anti-Mormons and in the media about this matter. Why the good Lord wants to draw undue controversial attention to his church over a trivial non-issue is illogical. An all-powerful being can do better than that. The Lord helps people find their car keys and with other trivial matters, yet he doesn't have the power to avert controversy over his church over a silly matter like usage of "principal."

[jadams_4242]

You misread me; allow me to clarify. I honestly don't give a rat's behind about the change. I'm not straining at this gnat (I'll leave that to others.) But regardless of whether this change is a gnat or not, it has created controversy, period. It's this controversial attention (undue or not) that I'm addressing (not the usage of "principal." I appreciate your correct spelling, too. I was wondering why so many can't spell right.)

All I was saying was that had the good ol' Lord nipped this problem in the bud, there would be no controversy amongst the anti-Mormons and in the media about this matter. Why the good Lord wants to draw undue controversial attention to his church over a trivial non-issue is illogical. An all-powerful being can do better than that. The Lord helps people find their car keys and with other trivial matters, yet he doesn't have the power to avert controversy over his church over a silly matter like usage of "principal."

And using that kind of analogy. i guess we must suppose the Holy Bible to be not of the lords hand either?

[LDSBruin]

All I was saying was that had the good ol' Lord nipped this problem in the bud, there would be no controversy amongst the anti-Mormons and in the media about this matter. Why the good Lord wants to draw undue controversial attention to his church over a trivial non-issue is illogical. An all-powerful being can do better than that. The Lord helps people find their car keys and with other trivial matters, yet he doesn't have the power to avert controversy over his church over a silly matter like usage of "principal."

I have to admit, when I first heard Elder Clayton's response to the question, I found it interesting that the issue had long been resolved in the minds of the brethren. Obviously, if the change had been marked as a to-do item a decade ago they could have come out and presented whatever evidence they have to show the DNA hecklers that haha, we never believed that anyway. But they didn't do that. The Lord doesn't respond to the dogs nipping at the heels of the church, because they are merely a nuisance. I think the brethren are correct in not addressing every bit of criticism. It would only serve to take away from the true focus of the church.

[LifeOnaPlate]

You misread me; allow me to clarify. I honestly don't give a rat's behind about the change. I'm not straining at this gnat (I'll leave that to others.) But regardless of whether this change is a gnat or not, it has created controversy, period. It's this controversial attention (undue or not) that I'm addressing (not the usage of "principal." I appreciate your correct spelling, too. I was wondering why so many can't spell right.)

All I was saying was that had the good ol' Lord nipped this problem in the bud, there would be no controversy amongst the anti-Mormons and in the media about this matter. Why the good Lord wants to draw undue controversial attention to his church over a trivial non-issue is illogical. An all-powerful being can do better than that. The Lord helps people find their car keys and with other trivial matters, yet he doesn't have the power to avert controversy over his church over a silly matter like usage of "principal."

Yes, God needs to force all things. Agency be damned, we can have no mistakes in this Church!

And using that kind of analogy. i guess we must suppose the Holy Bible to be not of the lords hand either?

He's an atheist from what I can tell. Correct me if I'm wrong, Moon.

[Freedom]

Why the good Lord wants to draw undue controversial attention to his church over a trivial non-issue is illogical. An all-powerful being can do better than that. The Lord helps people find their car keys and with other trivial matters, yet he doesn't have the power to avert controversy over his church over a silly matter like usage of "principal."

Clearly you do not have children. If you did, you would realize that the Lord is not interested in doing everything for us to protect us from any potential controversy or embarrassment. We are here to learn on our own as much as possible. The Lord has set down his doctrine and ordinances, but he leaves as much as possible to man to figure out on their own. It is what a good parent would do. The word Principle means nothing to many people. It took some time for the leaders of the church to decide to change it (a change that, in my opinion, was not needed), but it does not affect the Gods purpose at all. In fact, the only people who care are the dozen or so people on this board. If you did a survey at any given local church or any given non-member on the street, you would have a hard finding anyone who cares.

[The Dude]

Right. Obviously even if I were confirmed to be telling the truth (which I am) this is still just what Elder Clayton says.

I got quite excited when he said it, but was disappointed to find out the online Spanish edition doesn't have that wording. I was mostly hoping someone would check their own Spanish edition and perhaps find it, or maybe find it in another relatively recently reprinted edition for another language that maybe Elder Clayton confused with the Spanish edition. or maybe he was just confused in general.

Either way I wouldn't really be disappointed if he doesn't have the most up-to-date information on the situation since it really is a minor point in an eternal perspective.

Awesome post! I totally agree with all of your points.

You could in good faith send a message to Elder Clayton expressing exactly what you said here. Maybe he would like to know that he was mistaken, or confused in general. There's room for improvement, I would say.

I think the brethren are correct in not addressing every bit of criticism. It would only serve to take away from the true focus of the church.

If they don't know the answer then maybe they should just come out and say the DNA problem left them "confused in general". It's okay, since it's really a minor point in an eternal perspective.

[Moon Quaker]

Why the good Lord wants to draw undue controversial attention to his church over a trivial non-issue is illogical. An all-powerful being can do better than that. The Lord helps people find their car keys and with other trivial matters, yet he doesn't have the power to avert controversy over his church over a silly matter like usage of "principal."

... The word Principle means nothing to many people. It took some time for the leaders of the church to decide to change it (a change that, in my opinion, was not needed), but it does not affect the Gods purpose at all. In fact, the only people who care are the dozen or so people on this board. If you did a survey at any given local church or any given non-member on the street, you would have a hard finding anyone who cares.

(emphasis mine)

Obviously, you didn't even get the context of my post. I'm not interested in what verbage is printed in the BoM; "principle"[sic] schmincipal. Rest assured, I agree with you; this change is insignificant and is a non-issue. My qualm is that the lord is not powerful enough to have averted the entire thing in the first place.

Clearly you do not have children. If you did, you would realize that the Lord is not interested in doing everything for us to protect us from any potential controversy or embarrassment.

BTW, you are dead wrong in assuming that I am childless. And unlike you, apparently I am actually "interested in ... protect[ing them] from any potential controversy or embarrassment." If it is undue embarrassment, you better believe I will protect my children from it. However, if it is embarrassment they brought on themselves, yeah, I'll let 'em have it.

And using that kind of analogy. i guess we must suppose the Holy Bible to be not of the lords hand either?

I couldn't say it any better myself.

He's an atheist from what I can tell. Correct me if I'm wrong, Moon.

You are correct.

[why me]

Perhaps Elder Clayton got his facts wrong. However, his idea that the brethern had a change in mind over a decade ago is perhaps correct. It has been stated already on other threads that many on the committee did not like the principle part of the introduction but it was passed through. To my mind, it rankled some people and some on the committee probably thought that the word was perhaps too strong. Hence, to standoff more criticism and misconceptions, the change was made to the text. Those who were against the word 'principle' in the beginning probably went out to celebrate with a big 'I TOLD YOU SO'.

[why me]

Awesome post! I totally agree with all of your points.

You could in good faith send a message to Elder Clayton expressing exactly what you said here. Maybe he would like to know that he was mistaken, or confused in general. There's room for improvement, I would say.

If they don't know the answer then maybe they should just come out and say the DNA problem left them "confused in general". It's okay, since it's really a minor point in an eternal perspective.

I don't think that the change had much to do with DNA than with the use of the word and the debate centered around the word. We have had such debates on this board. What the change does do, is put the debate as to why the change was made and not over interpretations about what the word implies.

From an eternal perspective the word change does not matter. You see, dude, as I have said repeatedly, the book of mormon has not been proven a fraud. Now there have been speculations galore since the beginning of the lds church but nothing has stuck. In fact, the same debates have occurred over a hundred years ago. Nothing is really new in regards to book of mormon authorship. And nothing has been proven to confirm all the speculations. What to do??

[cdowis]

All I was saying was that had the good ol' Lord nipped this problem in the bud, there would be no controversy amongst the anti-Mormons and in the media about this matter. Why the good Lord wants to draw undue controversial attention to his church over a trivial non-issue is illogical. An all-powerful being can do better than that. The Lord helps people find their car keys and with other trivial matters, yet he doesn't have the power to avert controversy over his church over a silly matter like usage of "principal."

Please tell me the nature of the ..... Problem.

That the antimormons do not use the dictionary to see what "principal" actually means? How will the Lord "fix" the antimormons.