LDS Church removes racial references in Book of Mormon headings

[Vance]

How so?

You, apparently, don't even know enough to know how ignorant of things Mormon you really are.

[Pahoran]

So when you can't back up your statement you claim 'it doesn't matter'

It wasn't my statement to back up. And since the introduction post-dates the Book of Mormon text by over a century and a half, and was never regarded as inspired, changes thereto don't matter. Sorry.

You should try out for a career in full time Church Leadership...

Full time Church leadership is not a career, and nobody gets to "try out" for it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Hestia]

Perhaps Pahoran can enlighten both of us about the background to his statement.

It appears your question has been answered. Move on.

[Skylla]

You, apparently, don't even know enough to know how ignorant of things Mormon you really are.

Vance: Read the board guidelines.

Skylla

[Mammal]

Changes to the content of the Book of Mormon is nothing new.

No sooner had it been written than changes were made.

The Lamanities were the 'principle' ancestors of the Native Americans, now they are only 'among' the ancestors.

Jon,

BRM wrote the introduction and he would have based the wording on historical fact rather than making it up as you seem to be suggesting.

I'm sure that among the resources available to him would have been Joseph's journals, and these are now available to all of us.

This is one quote from Joseph Smith's Journals that he wrote following an experience with the angel Moroni:

''he told me of a sacred record which was written on plates of gold, I saw in the vision the place where they were deposited, he said the indians, were the literal descendants of Abraham he explained many things of the prophesies...'' Journal 1835-36 page 25

So you can see that the word 'principal' was a man made interpretation whereas the word 'among' is perhaps more accurate in relating what Joseph was divinely told.

Stop talking to yourself, Jon63. You're still banned.

[MichaelM]

Jon,

BRM wrote the introduction and he would have based the wording on historical fact rather than making it up as you seem to be suggesting.

I'm sure that among the resources available to him would have been Joseph's journals, and these are now available to all of us.

This is one quote from Joseph Smith's Journals that he wrote following an experience with the angel Moroni:

''he told me of a sacred record which was written on plates of gold, I saw in the vision the place where they were deposited, he said the indians, were the literal descendants of Abraham he explained many things of the prophesies...'' Journal 1835-36 page 25

So you can see that the word 'principal' was a man made interpretation whereas the word 'among' is perhaps more accurate in relating what Joseph was divinely told.

I cannot see how the word 'principal' was a man made interpretation whereas the word 'among' is more accurate.

"Literal descendants of Abraham" is very specific. It means through Isaac and Jacob. 'Among' throws others into the ancestry without any early LDS manuscripts to support it. BRM had a scholarly knowledge exceeding most LDS even today. He knew exactly what he meant when he used the word 'principal'.

How about D&C 57:4? The Lord called the Indians "Jews". Jesus and Moroni were on the same page and McConkie knew it. There is no way to consider 'among' to be "more accurate". It makes about as much sense as carrying a horse rather than riding it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I cannot see how the word 'principal' was a man made interpretation whereas the word 'among' is more accurate.

Can you reword what you are saying here. I cannot make sense of this statement.

[MichaelM]

Can you reword what you are saying here. I cannot make sense of this statement.

Mammal, on 14 January 2011 - 04:56 AM, said: "So you can see that the word 'principal' was a man made interpretation whereas the word 'among' is perhaps more accurate in relating what Joseph was divinely told."

I simply said that I disagree with his claim. I understood what he said, you might ask him to reword it for you.

[caudicus]

I'm sure it is much better to read the Book of Mormon with no punctuation and numerous grammatical errors.

Pretty much all of the changes made to the Book of Mormon text were either grammatical, corrections to mistakes made in printing, or changes that Joseph himself made in later editions of the book (e.g. adding "or out of the waters of baptism" in 1 Nephi 20:1 in the 1840 edition).

It is an undeniable fact that Joseph and others under his directions edited his revelations to prepare for publication.

Is this copy pasta from somewhere? I swear I have read those exact words before.

Either way, if you don't count the "grammatical" the "printing mistakes" and the changes that Joseph himself made, you are still look at a few thousand changes. They are well documented, and they have happened throughout the course of church history.

Just Google "changes to the Book of Mormon"

There are a number of comparisons online, and you can clearly see where your guess is wrong.

[LeSellers]

if you don't count the "grammatical" the "printing mistakes" and the changes that Joseph himself made, you are still look at a few thousand changes. They are well documented, and they have happened throughout the course of church history.

Not even Decker makes this absurd claim: there are "a few thousand changes [in the Book of Mormon]" comparing the 1981 to the "original" 1830 edition after eliminating the grammatical and typographic errors.

First, and what few people understand, we have the fact that handset types introduce hundreds of errors per "signature". Each signature (sixteen pages) was printed as a whole, but that Oliver or Joseph proofread each signature as it came off the press. However, the press run did not stop as they did their work, and the printer made corrections as they went. This means there were dozens or hundreds of different versions of each signature. The result of each signature's having differences and many signatures in each volume means it is possible (however unlikely) that there were no two volumes exactly the same. Thus, there is no "original 1830 edition" against which to measure anything.

Secondly, one of the charges, that the Book of Mormon was [perfect, the most perfect/correct] book in all of history is in error, since that's not what Joseph said nor what he meant when he said what he did say. And what he said was does not mean that there were no human errors in it; rather the contrary, since the book admits there may be errors in it, but that they are the product of men. And, finally, the edition to which Joseph was referring was to that of 1842, which was not used in later printings because the "standard" was the one Brigham Young used as the basis for the British version in 1837(?). It was only in the 1981 edition that Joseph's came back into play.

Further, it is the principles, not the text, to which Joseph was referring anyway, so any errors in writing, or even doctrine, do not mean he was wrong, since he was plain that the principles it teaches are the subject of its being "the most correct book".

Lastly, there are only a half-dozen changes that have any theological impact. And they are not "changes" if one means that something significant was introduced or eliminated. They are clarifications, nothing more.

Your charge is false. An honorable man would retract and apologize.

Lehi

[mapman]

Is this copy pasta from somewhere? I swear I have read those exact words before.

Either way, if you don't count the "grammatical" the "printing mistakes" and the changes that Joseph himself made, you are still look at a few thousand changes. They are well documented, and they have happened throughout the course of church history.

Just Google "changes to the Book of Mormon"

There are a number of comparisons online, and you can clearly see where your guess is wrong.

I wrote that myself. I am well aware of what changes there are and I am not guessing. I own The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text which lists all the significant changes in the text. There really isn't anything shocking. There are a total of 5,280 differences between The Earliest Text and the 1981 edition, and 3,039 are grammatical (over half). The other 2,241 include the following: 606 of those are found only in manuscripts or are conjectural emendations, 131 are changes to make phraseology more consistent, 34 restore a unique phrase or word choice from the earliest text, and 256 are changes that make some difference in meaning. (see Earliest Text page xxxv). The biggest changes are the addition of "Son of" before "God" in a few places to clarify who is being talked about. There really is no reason to be alarmed by the changes if you don't hold to some sort of fundamentalist view that there is exactly one set of English words that can correctly deliver the book's message and be the word of God. But as I was saying, this view is untenable to the obvious fact that revelations have been edited. From what I've heard, patriarchs continue this tradition by cleaning up the grammar in their blessings when transcribing the recordings.