The Grimace Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 In the on-line version of the scriptures, there have already been a number textual changes in some of the study aids, such as the chapter synopses and, most prominently, the introduction to the Book of Mormon, where the phrase "principal ancestors" was changed to "among the ancestors."I suspect any new print edition of the scriptures will contain these changes already made in the on-line version. I will be surprised if there is anything more extensive than this.Sounds like a change in doctrine to me.
rongo Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 Sounds like a change in doctrine to me.Only if "principal" = "only." Doesn't the existence of "principal" ancestors necessarily point to other, "lesser" ones? And in the context of the gospel and convenant lineage, what is a "primary" ancestor? Numerically superior ones, or covenant lineage ones? 2
Scott Lloyd Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 Sounds like a change in doctrine to me.We've been round and round about this on message boards such as this one, but the short answer is no, it's not. 1
Calm Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 (edited) Actually, I am sure your point is entirely accurate.I am wondering if you are missing a "not". It was what we were told by Church Distribution when they cut some options in 2002 or so. Limiting colours allows them to buy larger amounts and thus lower costs per item, limiting styles cuts down on maintenance costs, etc. Even if there are some willing to pay for the option, unless there were sufficient numbers than it might lead to a very high price for the option and thus would not be worth it even to those who were willing to pay a certain percentage more, but not double for example. Edited October 6, 2012 by calmoriah
The Grimace Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 Only if "principal" = "only." Doesn't the existence of "principal" ancestors necessarily point to other, "lesser" ones? And in the context of the gospel and convenant lineage, what is a "primary" ancestor? Numerically superior ones, or covenant lineage ones?"Principal" means "primary", or "majority", when taken in context. Neither, as evidenced by DNA studies, is true.
The Grimace Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 We've been round and round about this on message boards such as this one, but the short answer is no, it's not.Sure it is. It removes the notion that Native Americans are primarily ("principally") of Jewish descent. Fortunately, the record of backpeddling can't be scrubbed.
zerinus Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 It's not ramming it down people's throats to provide supplementary material and study aids in the most cost-effective way possible.That is not ramming down people's throats, I agree; but your telling people how they should or should not have their sets if scriptures, is.You are entitled to your preferences, but the Church is not obligated to accommodate them, especially when they conflict with what the Church wants to achieve.You may see a conflict, but I don't.I, on the other hand, have been greatly blessed by the study helps in the LDS editions of the scriptures, and scarecely a day goes by when I do not benefit from them in some way.That explains why you have such poor knowledge of the scriptures! I cannot conceive of how my needs as a Latter-day Saint could be better met by study aids produced by sectarian Christianity.If you think that LDS made references are going to be better just because they have been done by LDS, and non-LDS ones are going to be worse just because they have been done by "sectarian Christianity," you have another thing coming. There are a lot of things that "sectarian Christianity" know how to do better than LDS. LDS are novices and amatures in some things compared to them. There is a lot that we can learn from them, if we were humble enough to recognize and appreciate it.You are unnecessarily rude too often and are going to be expelled from threads until you clean up your attitude. 1
Hestia Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 Zerinus is no longer on this thread due to personal insults.
MormonMason Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 (edited) "Principal" means "primary", or "majority", when taken in context. Neither, as evidenced by DNA studies, is true.It can also mean "most important" in various contexts. And, it doesn't matter regarding the DNA. There are such things as Founder Effect and Bottlenecks that can result in the loss of nearly all traces of certain types of DNA.Heck, a single intermarriage can do that if the initial group is small enough. Think about it. The reason why, the scientists say, that only one female mtDNA line and one male y-chDNA line are the origin of all mtDNA and y-chDNA lines that are present in today's human populations is precisely because of these genetic phenomena. Literally tens of thousands of lines were wiped out in prehistoric times and not a lick of any of these alternate mtDNA and y-chDNA lines have been seen so far in human populations.It is not hard to see the plausibility in something like that happening with the Book of Mormon. I mean, look at studies done in Iceland and elsewhere regarding this. There are lines of DNA that should be in entire populations but aren't because of these same phenomena.Someone I know is of direct Viking descent, with no adoptions on record anywhere, but not a lick of Viking DNA lineages used in population studies can be found in him. That does not make him of non-Viking descent, nor is this the case for the tens of thousands descended from the same common ancestor. The same goes for someone I know who is of Native American descent. Not a trace of Native American mtDNA or y-chDNA is in him but he still is of Native American descent.In Brazil, you have white men with African y-chDNA lineages, Black men with European y-chDNA lineages, and Native American with both African and European mtDNA and y-chDNA lineages. Brazil is an example of what happens with repeated intermarriages. The Book of Mormon had intermarriages and interactions aplenty, and if there were others there when the people of Lehi arrived (the Book of Mormon implies it) then intermarriages with the Natives could have subsumed Lehi's DNA entirely. This does not make any of them any less descendants of Lehi.Fact is, DNA proves squat in studies like the above to which you allude. It also disproves squat. Edited October 7, 2012 by MormonMason 2
David T Posted October 9, 2012 Author Posted October 9, 2012 Another update from another individual, an email from Distribution stating, “We are getting new scriptures at the end of the year. We do not know yet what colors they will be, or how they are different from the old kind. Just that they are coming.”Even if it is simply a modern re-setting of the text, including the change in introduction, headers, footnotes, I'd say that would be progress. I'd love to see some of Royal Skousen's work pay off into a revised edition of the BoM, and also an edition of the D&C with additional notes and information derived from the JSPP, but having the text re-set with updated and slightly less-dated headers is a step in the direction I'd look forward to!
Freedom Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 When referring to ancestors, principle can only mean most important. My principle ancestor is the one who lead me to live in North America and to accept the gospel. Abraham is the principle ancestor of the house of Israel. Clearly he is not the most numerous. 1
David T Posted October 9, 2012 Author Posted October 9, 2012 (edited) When referring to ancestors, principle can only mean most important. My principle ancestor is the one who lead me to live in North America and to accept the gospel. Abraham is the principle ancestor of the house of Israel. Clearly he is not the most numerous.I don't think the usage of 'principal' is worth being argued over, or defended. The church clearly decided 'principal' was no longer the best and most clear word to use to describe the relationship of the Lamanites to present day Native Americans. The fact that there is arguing over the definition of principal shows this to be the case, whether or not one finds their own preferred definition of the word to compliment their personal beliefs. This alone makes the change very worthwhile. Edited October 9, 2012 by David T 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 I don't think the usage of 'principal' is worth being argued over, or defended. The church clearly decided 'principal' was no longer the best and most clear word to use to describe the relationship of the Lamanites to present day Native Americans. The fact that there is arguing over the definition of principal shows this to be the case, whether or not one finds their own preferred definition of the word to compliment their personal beliefs. This alone makes the change very worthwhile.I didn't understand Freedom's post to say that the change wasn't worthwhile. Rather, he seemed to be saying that the way it stood before was not incorrect.To say that something could be better and more clearly phrased is not to say that it was absolutely false in the first place.
mapman Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 (edited) Another update from another individual, an email from Distribution stating, “We are getting new scriptures at the end of the year. We do not know yet what colors they will be, or how they are different from the old kind. Just that they are coming.”Even if it is simply a modern re-setting of the text, including the change in introduction, headers, footnotes, I'd say that would be progress. I'd love to see some of Royal Skousen's work pay off into a revised edition of the BoM, and also an edition of the D&C with additional notes and information derived from the JSPP, but having the text re-set with updated and slightly less-dated headers is a step in the direction I'd look forward to!Royal Skousen met with the Scriptures Committee and they came up with some agreements and budgets, though there are no details online (see here). Edited October 9, 2012 by mapman
David T Posted October 9, 2012 Author Posted October 9, 2012 Also, I just called Distribution. The nice lady on the phone only knew that certain color sets were being discontinued. I asked if that meant only leather editions were affected, and as far as she knew that was correct. She was very open about not knowing anything about it, saying "You'll probably know before I do!", but volunteered that she didn't have any indication that any wording was being changed.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 Royal Skousen met with the Scriptures Committee and they came up with some agreements and budgets, though there are no details online (see here).It's not clear to me how your link supports your post.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 Also, I just called Distribution. The nice lady on the phone only knew that certain color sets were being discontinued. I asked if that meant only leather editions were affected, and as far as she knew that was correct. She was very open about not knowing anything about it, saying "You'll probably know before I do!", but volunteered that she didn't have any indication that any wording was being changed.I would be astounded if any new edition of the scriptures did not include changes in wording that have already been made in online editions.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 She was very open about not knowing anything about it, saying "You'll probably know before I do!", but volunteered that she didn't have any indication that any wording was being changed.I work for a Church-correlated publication (LDS Church News) yet I often hear things on the street before I ever hear about them officially at work.
mapman Posted October 9, 2012 Posted October 9, 2012 (edited) It's not clear to me how your link supports your post.It's not a whole lot to go on, just being an entry in the Church History Library catolog, but it shows that the Scriptures Committee had a project called "Book of Mormon text analysis project,2000" with Royal Skousen and that they ended up with a folder of documents labelled "Agreements" and a folder labelled "Budgets." I obviously don't know what are in the folders. Edited October 9, 2012 by mapman
David T Posted October 9, 2012 Author Posted October 9, 2012 It's not clear to me how your link supports your post.I see the 'met with the scriptures committee' part in the documents, reviewing the proposed changes, but that being from something back in 2000.
Blah Posted October 10, 2012 Posted October 10, 2012 I recall seeing a video of a FARMS presentation online several years ago in which Royal Skousen states that he'd given permission to the church to use his research in a future edition.
Doctrine 612 Posted April 1, 2013 Posted April 1, 2013 I wish they would do us an edition where the Bible Dictionaty, Topical Guide etc. will be printed as a separate volume so the scriptures themselves wouldn't be so massive and heavy to carry around and read. I didn't think it required a lot of imagination to think of that. They already provide several options on how you want to buy your set of scriptures. Why not add this option to it? I am sure I am not the only one who would prefer and appreciate that particular option.I concur
Scott Lloyd Posted April 1, 2013 Posted April 1, 2013 I concurI see you are quite late in joining this thread from October of last year. I hope you will consider the posts made in response to zerinus regarding cost-effectiveness issues pertaining to producing editions of scriptures to suit individual preferences -- such as omitting the study aids, which have been produced over the years with great effort and considerable inspiration.
CASteinman Posted April 1, 2013 Posted April 1, 2013 New printing images should be good - producing nice sharp pages.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 1, 2013 Posted April 1, 2013 (edited) Yesterday in gospel doctrine class, I had my first personal encounter with the impact of the new editions of the scriptures.The teacher referred us to the introduction in the Pearl of Great Price. She asked for a volunteer to read aloud from the "brief introduction to the present contents." I so volunteered, reading from the electronic copy of the scriptures on my iPod touch.After I finished reading the portion about the Book of Abraham, the teacher said, "I can see that you have the new editions of the scriptures." I replied that yes, I had downloaded them electronically from the Church website. As it happened, almost everyone else in the classroom were reading from their paper copies of the scriptures and, of course, their version was quite a bit different.The teacher said I might as well continue on and read the paragraphs about the other items in the Pearl of Great Price so that "we can have the latest and greatest."Some expressed interest in the changes that have been made to the study helps, though we didn't dwell on them. Edited April 1, 2013 by Scott Lloyd 1
Recommended Posts