Doesn't matter if the intro was specifically cannon, it was part of the reading list for millions of prospective converts, many of them who supposidly did their missionary reading assignments and got a testimony of it as true. Looks like the HG is a liar.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
Gadianton wrote:Doesn't matter if the intro was specifically cannon, it was part of the reading list for millions of prospective converts, many of them who supposidly did their missionary reading assignments and got a testimony of it as true. Looks like the HG is a liar.
Gadianton wrote:Doesn't matter if the intro was specifically cannon, it was part of the reading list for millions of prospective converts, many of them who supposidly did their missionary reading assignments and got a testimony of it as true. Looks like the HG is a liar.
Meh, its is like many other changes.
It is small enough for members to be told to swallow it and still allows the missionaries to tell the unwitting investigator from Mexico and southern America that their ancestors were AMONG these peoples of this fab American novel.
Someone quietly pointed this out on MAD a while back, but everybody on the thread ignored him:
Drewm777 wrote:Has anyone read the modified introduction in the Doubleday edition? It corrects this sentence. to "they are among the ancestors" of american indians.
LifeOnaPlate wrote:As I've never viewed the Introduction as canonical, I welcome the change.
You don't get to determine what is or is not "canonical," LoP, unless you are prepared to weather accusations of "ark steadying." The Brethren have always maintained that the Standard Works are the cornerstones of the LDS doctrinal canon. The introduction to the Book of Mormon is a part of these Standard Works---every bit as much so as the topical guide, the Articles of Faith, or the Third Book of Nephi. To argue otherwise is heresy.
Someone should have told Bruce McConkie, who helped in writing the Introduction; he saw things differently regarding the Intro and the canon.
Oh, really? Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?
I was also unaware I couldn't think for myself regarding what is canon to me. ;)
You are welcome to think whatever you like, and to invent all sorts of canons. This does not change the facts of what does and does not constitute canonical LDS scripture, however.
LifeOnaPlate wrote:As I've never viewed the Introduction as canonical, I welcome the change.
You don't get to determine what is or is not "canonical," LoP, unless you are prepared to weather accusations of "ark steadying." The Brethren have always maintained that the Standard Works are the cornerstones of the LDS doctrinal canon. The introduction to the Book of Mormon is a part of these Standard Works---every bit as much so as the topical guide, the Articles of Faith, or the Third Book of Nephi. To argue otherwise is heresy.
Someone should have told Bruce McConkie, who helped in writing the Introduction; he saw things differently regarding the Intro and the canon.
Oh, really? Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?
I was also unaware I couldn't think for myself regarding what is canon to me. ;)
You are welcome to think whatever you like, and to invent all sorts of canons. This does not change the facts of what does and does not constitute canonical LDS scripture, however.
Well, this is the quote I am referring to. Note it does not specifically reference the "Introduction," but as it was introduced in the same project of which Elder M. is referring to, I consider it as part and parcel:
“As for the "Joseph Smith Translation items, the chapter headings, Topical Guide, Bible Dictionary, footnotes, the Gazeteer, and the maps. None of these are perfect; they do not of themselves determine doctrine; there have been and undoubtedly now are mistakes in them. Cross-references, for instance, do not establish and never were intended to prove that parallel passages so much as pertain to the same subject. They are aids and helps only." Elder McConkie, Sermons and Writings of Bruce R. McConkie, 289-90