Book of Mormon Intro - "Principal Ancestors" wording changed

[_Runtu]

Dealing with linguistics is a part of dealing with a text.

Your point being?

I was responding to what you said: "He has to grasp at linguistic clues while discounting the clear statements in the text that the land was reserved for the Nephites and the others God brought (Mulekites and Jaredites)."

You seemed to be saying that linguistics were not important.

I was saying that mere hints at linguistic "clues" do not a strong case make.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

The intro did not come directly from the Lord's mouthpiece. That is the president of the church. Bruce R. McConkie was not ever the president of the Church.

I wish you would get these things right, Scratch.

Ha ha ha, Charity. Do you think that something as critical as the intro to the Book of Mormon, which, let's face it far, far more people are likely to read as compared to the rest of the text, would be published without the full supervisory approval of the FP?

I don't know, Scratch, Kimball was pretty old when that new introduction was approved. In fact, the entire FP was so old and senile at this time who knows what happened that shouldn't have. Maybe BRM snuck one past the old geezers.

[_Runtu]

The intro did not come directly from the Lord's mouthpiece. That is the president of the church. Bruce R. McConkie was not ever the president of the Church.

I wish you would get these things right, Scratch.

Ha ha ha, Charity. Do you think that something as critical as the intro to the Book of Mormon, which, let's face it far, far more people are likely to read as compared to the rest of the text, would be published without the full supervisory approval of the FP?

I don't know, Scratch, Kimball was pretty old when that new introduction was approved. In fact, the entire FP was so old and senile at this time who knows what happened that shouldn't have. Maybe BRM snuck one past the old geezers.

The one fact everyone is forgetting is that the 1981 edition bears the church's copyright, which means it was approved by Correlation and signed off by the GAs as "consistent with doctrine." And anything correlated is as official as it gets these days.

[_Sethbag]

The buffalo hunt was an exaggeration of the type of peripheral stuff you would expect. Certainly I would expect something more significant than Sorensen offers. Sorensen's suggested proofs of others are too indirect to be proof of anything. For example, one if his clues is the Nephite use of corn. His theory goes since Nephites couldn't have learned about corn in the Old World, they must have learned about it in the new world, and they could only be taught about corn by the Natives. That's it. That's one of his proofs of others in the Book of Mormon. That's not very convincing to me, because another possibility is Joseph Smith or whoever wrote the Book of Mormon took what he knew about Indians (they eat corn) and applied it to his characters, who are the forefathers of the Indians.

This is exactly a problem I have with a lot of mopologetic attempts at defending the Book of Mormon. One of the ones I've picked on lately is the idea that Joseph Smith having described fortified cities is evidence supporting the Book of Mormon. The reasoning goes like this. Joseph Smith described fortified cities in the Book of Mormon. It was not known (at least they claim it wasn't - others dispute this) at the time of the Book of Mormon's writing that there were fortified city ruins in Mesoamerica. The point is, "how could Joseph have known that?"

My answer is that Joseph didn't have to know it. Fortified cities were de rigeur in the European and Asian tradition with which Joseph Smith was already familiar. Joseph could just have naïvely projected things he was already familiar with into the world of the Nephites and Lamanites, and then "lucked out" when it was subsequently discovered that, gasp, some Mesoamericans had struck upon the amazingly unique and unlikely (uhuh) idea of fortifying their city. I think it's already pretty clear that Joseph had done precisely this with the idea of mass cultivation of barley and wheat, steel swords, horses, chariots, and such.

Joseph Smith was undoubtedly familiar with corn. In writing corn into the Book of Mormon, I think the most obvious likelihood is that Joseph simply wrote it in without even thinking much about whether, or how, the Lehites could have known how to cultivate it. I'm not sure it even occurred to him as a problem that needed to be solved.

[_charity]

Ha ha ha, Charity. Do you think that something as critical as the intro to the Book of Mormon, which, let's face it far, far more people are likely to read as compared to the rest of the text, would be published without the full supervisory approval of the FP? BRM may have penned the text, but the FP used their Power of Discernment to determine whether or not it was suitable / "of God." Now, of course, they are reneging.

I have taught Gospel Doctrine for years. Lesson 1 in the Book of Mormon course of study does not even mention the Introduction in the student study guide. The teacher's study guide says to read it along with 14 passages of scripture in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. The teacher's lesson suggestions do not even mention the introduction.

Now would you tell me how "critical" it is?

The claim that isn't there, is that every single American Indian had no other progenitor's except Lehites.

Wait a second. If what you're saying is correct, then how do you account for remarks such as SWK's? Was he really saying that only some American Indians were becoming "white and delightsome" before his eyes?

President Kimball was a really nice man who tried to be positive and upbeat. Go pick on someone else.

Your misinterpreation has been duly noted on this thread. You don't need to bring in other issues.

I haven't misinterpreted anything, my dear Charity, and I would recommend against pooh-poohing away "issues" that have a direct bearing on the discussion at hand.

I think that a key problem with your argument is this: Nowhere, in the history of the Church, has any of the Brethren *ever* said "The intro is referring to only a portion of the Native Americans." This has never been said, not one single time, ever. In fact, the places where the Brethren are commenting upon this--places such as Mormon Doctrine--seem to directly contradict this new, updated view. So, I ask you: Why is this only being qualified now? Why has it taken nearly two hundred years of Church history to make clear that this has "actually" been the case all along?

That is not my argument at all. People can say things that other people disagree with. I don't know if you are as inflexible as you portray, or you are only trying to project inflexibility on us, but you sure do seem to get your knickers in a knot when something doesn't appear to be what you had a misperception of it all along.

Also, a person with a certain degree of light and knowledge can say something that another person, not so blessed, will misunderstand completely. Why didn't they ever say anything before? Because they didn't see it as important. I don't think you can ever say anything that someone won't misunderstand. So you go with the reasonable statement, and let a few people yap and whine. It is more about the nature to yap and whine than about the statement itself.

[_harmony]

in the student study guide. The teacher's study guide says to read it along with 14 passages of scripture in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. The teacher's lesson suggestions do not even mention the introduction.

Now would you tell me how "critical" it is?

The study guides didn't mention anything about multiple wives either, yet that principle is integral to the message of the early Church prophets.

President Kimball was a really nice man who tried to be positive and upbeat. Go pick on someone else.

Pres Kimball is not given a free pass here. His words are critiqued as well as any other prophet's.

That is not my argument at all. People can say things that other people disagree with. I don't know if you are as inflexible as you portray, or you are only trying to project inflexibility on us, but you sure do seem to get your knickers in a knot when something doesn't appear to be what you had a misperception of it all along.

Actually, no. Members cannot disagree with church leaders, at least not publically. To do so often results in forfeiting one's membership.

And the only misinterpretation going on here is yours. We all figured out what McKonkie meant years ago. You are the one struggling with the obvious.

Also, a person with a certain degree of light and knowledge can say something that another person, not so blessed, will misunderstand completely. Why didn't they ever say anything before? Because they didn't see it as important. I don't think you can ever say anything that someone won't misunderstand. So you go with the reasonable statement, and let a few people yap and whine. It is more about the nature to yap and whine than about the statement itself.

Balderdash. "Not so blessed"? Blessings have nothing to do with clear communication. They didn't say anything before because they had no one pointing out how incongruent the statement was. With the latest research, it's obvious that the backpeddling is in response to the science.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

I have taught Gospel Doctrine for years. Lesson 1 in the Book of Mormon course of study does not even mention the Introduction in the student study guide. The teacher's study guide says to read it along with 14 passages of scripture in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. The teacher's lesson suggestions do not even mention the introduction.

Since when was Gospel Doctrine class doctrinal?

[_Mister Scratch]

Ha ha ha, Charity. Do you think that something as critical as the intro to the Book of Mormon, which, let's face it far, far more people are likely to read as compared to the rest of the text, would be published without the full supervisory approval of the FP? BRM may have penned the text, but the FP used their Power of Discernment to determine whether or not it was suitable / "of God." Now, of course, they are reneging.

I have taught Gospel Doctrine for years. Lesson 1 in the Book of Mormon course of study does not even mention the Introduction in the student study guide. The teacher's study guide says to read it along with 14 passages of scripture in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. The teacher's lesson suggestions do not even mention the introduction.

Now would you tell me how "critical" it is?

Yes, it is extremely critical. It is the very first portion of considerable text in the Book of Mormon. It is likely the first thing a person reads. Face it, Charity: more people will read the Book of Mormon than will attend your Gospel Doctrine class. Further, your logic here is hypocritical. Here you're saying, "Well, my Gospel Doctrine manual doesn't mention the Intro, so therefore the intro must not be important!" On the other hand, you are saying, "Yeah, sure, it *did* say 'principal,' but that wasn't important!" Care to offer up some consistency, friend?

The claim that isn't there, is that every single American Indian had no other progenitor's except Lehites.

Wait a second. If what you're saying is correct, then how do you account for remarks such as SWK's? Was he really saying that only some American Indians were becoming "white and delightsome" before his eyes?

President Kimball was a really nice man who tried to be positive and upbeat. Go pick on someone else.

Is this really the best you've got? Come now, Charity. DCP will tell you that you need to bring your A-game when you come over here.

Your misinterpreation has been duly noted on this thread. You don't need to bring in other issues.

I haven't misinterpreted anything, my dear Charity, and I would recommend against pooh-poohing away "issues" that have a direct bearing on the discussion at hand.

I think that a key problem with your argument is this: Nowhere, in the history of the Church, has any of the Brethren *ever* said "The intro is referring to only a portion of the Native Americans." This has never been said, not one single time, ever. In fact, the places where the Brethren are commenting upon this--places such as Mormon Doctrine--seem to directly contradict this new, updated view. So, I ask you: Why is this only being qualified now? Why has it taken nearly two hundred years of Church history to make clear that this has "actually" been the case all along?

That is not my argument at all.

Oh? Then what *is* your argument? Or do you conveniently not have one, thus making it impossible to counter your views? Hmmmm. Let me try to simplify. So far as I can tell, you are mainly claiming that the word "principal" has been mis-interpreted. Is that correct? If so, can you provide any evidence for this?

People can say things that other people disagree with. I don't know if you are as inflexible as you portray, or you are only trying to project inflexibility on us, but you sure do seem to get your knickers in a knot when something doesn't appear to be what you had a misperception of it all along.

What does this even mean?

Also, a person with a certain degree of light and knowledge can say something that another person, not so blessed, will misunderstand completely. Why didn't they ever say anything before? Because they didn't see it as important. I don't think you can ever say anything that someone won't misunderstand.

Yeah, wow. It was so un-"important" that even the Brethren themselves seemed to have misunderstood. They didn't "say anything before" because those were the days before things like DNA evidence.

So you go with the reasonable statement, and let a few people yap and whine. It is more about the nature to yap and whine than about the statement itself.

The only "reasonable" statement here is to concede that the Church is reneging.

[_charity]

Yes, it is extremely critical. It is the very first portion of considerable text in the Book of Mormon. It is likely the first thing a person reads. Face it, Charity: more people will read the Book of Mormon than will attend your Gospel Doctrine class. Further, your logic here is hypocritical. Here you're saying, "Well, my Gospel Doctrine manual doesn't mention the Intro, so therefore the intro must not be important!" On the other hand, you are saying, "Yeah, sure, it *did* say 'principal,' but that wasn't important!" Care to offer up some consistency, friend?

Keep repeating to yourself another 10 or 20 times that it is critical to the Book of Mormon and you might make yourself believe it. I think you are on shaky ground here trying to convince the readers of this message board that every one cracks open a cover of a book and starts reading the first printed word they see and proceed on through. They know they don't, and they are wondering what you are talking about.

And I do think telling the American Indians that they are part of the covenant people of Abraham is important. I don't think the working of how that comes about it terribly important. It is the message itself, not the words of the message that is important.



Is this really the best you've got? Come now, Charity. DCP will tell you that you need to bring your A-game when you come over here.

Sorry to burst another of your little bubbles. I haven't seen any A-game yet. I figured I was still in that legendary honeymoon period. I came from one anti- message board where it was all scrubs. I thought I would get better discussion than I've gotten here. I am ready for the real stuff whenever you are.

Oh? Then what *is* your argument? Or do you conveniently not have one, thus making it impossible to counter your views? Hmmmm. Let me try to simplify. So far as I can tell, you are mainly claiming that the word "principal" has been mis-interpreted. Is that correct? If so, can you provide any evidence for this?

Let me try to get through once again. The word "principal" always meant that the most important person on the pedigree was Lehi. Because of the Abrahamic covenant. However, the word "principal" has been taken to mean, particularly of late, the number of individuals in the pedigree as a group by people who are not students of the doctrines of the Church.

Since the Church leaders and many members are so much more knowledgable about genealogical matters, and pedigrees, etc. these matters are more easily understood by members. When you tell a person who knows about geometric progression (as refers to number of ancestors) they can grasp the concept more easily.

People can say things that other people disagree with. I don't know if you are as inflexible as you portray, or you are only trying to project inflexibility on us, but you sure do seem to get your knickers in a knot when something doesn't appear to be what you had a misperception of it all along.

What does this even mean?

It means that some people must hang on to an idea once it is in their mind well past reasonableness. It does take more information to overcome a first impression, that is true. But some people can't seem to get past that. There are others of us who can see when we have misinterpreted something and understand the truth. Anti's seem to be in the first group. They get an idea and they have it tattooed into their skin. They can't change. So they think others can't either.

Also, a person with a certain degree of light and knowledge can say something that another person, not so blessed, will misunderstand completely. Why didn't they ever say anything before? Because they didn't see it as important. I don't think you can ever say anything that someone won't misunderstand.

Yeah, wow. It was so un-"important" that even the Brethren themselves seemed to have misunderstood. They didn't "say anything before" because those were the days before things like DNA evidence.

Those were the days before more people began to apply a different meaning to the word. The Brethren didn't misunderstand what "principal" meant, and they still don't misundestand.

So you go with the reasonable statement, and let a few people yap and whine. It is more about the nature to yap and whine than about the statement itself.[/b]

The only "reasonable" statement here is to concede that the Church is reneging.

Yap and whine.

[_mocnarf]

We invite all men (that's right ladies, your husbands do the reading, not you) everywhere to read the Book of Mormon and ponder its message, and not to submit it to any real rational scrutiny, and then pray to ask God to tell you it is true, because the answer will definitely be "yes!"

And if you get any other answer, start praying some more until you do get the correct answer.