Book of Mormon Intro - "Principal Ancestors" wording changed

[_Who Knows]

It doesn't matter how many times an erroneous statement is made. It doesn't become true. Your misinterpreations of the word "principal" won't change what it really was intended to convey. Why would I have any reason to listen to critics continually tell me that Bruce R. McConkie didn't mean what he meant?

What? Take the fingers out of your ears! We're the only ones here demonstrating what 'principal' actually meant - BY THE PERSON WHO WROTE IT! We've given you ample evidence to show what BRM meant when he wrote it. YOU HAVE PROVIDED NONE, SAVE YOUR OWN PERSONAL OPINION!

Or that the Church no longer belives that Lehi's descendants, the Lamanites, are in the pedigrees of Native Americans?

Get a grip.

Stop with the strawman. Jeez. Unfreakingbelievable. No one has suggested otherwise.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Why would I have any reason to listen to critics continually tell me that Bruce R. McConkie didn't mean what he meant?

But I've been telling you what BRM did mean, based on his own words. And that's important since he authored the Introduction (and use of "principal" therein) that is at issue here. What fight so hard against the truth?

I like "among" better than "principle," and don't view the introduction as scripture.

[_harmony]

It doesn't matter how many times an erroneous statement is made. It doesn't become true. Your misinterpreations of the word "principal" won't change what it really was intended to convey. Why would I have any reason to listen to critics continually tell me that Bruce R. McConkie didn't mean what he meant? Or that the Church no longer belives that Lehi's descendants, the Lamanites, are in the pedigrees of Native Americans?

Get a grip.

This is exactly the attitude that prevailed prior to the announcement in 1978. Many many people, prophets and apostles included, had egg on their faces when that announcement was made. Brigham was wrong, Joseph F was wrong, and the FP statement in 1949 was horribly wrong, and McConkie had to eat his words publically.

Continuing revelation works. Stubborn old men can be moved however reluctantly into the 21st century. This is the first step to moving away from the whole historicity concept, and since historicity is unsupportable, I for one am delighted to see it.

We (meaning the royal We, meaning our leaders) have been wrong before. We correct it. We've found another error. We're correcting it. People should be leaping for joy, instead of gloating on one hand and clinging to the error out of ignorance and spite on the other.

[_Who Knows]

Personally, I think the Introduction of the Book of Mormon gives the impression that the people of the Book of Mormon are the main ancestors of the Native Americans as we know them today. I have never viewed the Intro as canonical, and it doesn't bother me if it was mistaken in that regard.

I like "among" better than "principle," and don't view the introduction as scripture.

A voice of reason. Thanks LOAP.

(though your view that the intro. is not scripture is debatable - but for another thread). :)

[_rcrocket]

A few points:

1. The Lamanites are, indeed, the principal ancestors of the Indians. And I know what the word "principal" means.

2. We don't know why the Doubleday edition was changed. Could be that some of the LGT theorists, of which I am not one, are having their way with editorial content of non-canonical material. So what? It could very well be that Doubleday has employed a consultant for this project who has no official Church sanction. The official publication has not changed.

3. If the intro does, indeed change, again I ask, so what? At least one of the brethren agree with the LGT theory; it doesn't matter to most.l

rcrocket

[_Who Knows]

I know what the word "principal" means.

Sure, you can interpret it to mean whatever you like, I guess. But do you know what the person who wrote it intended it to mean?

[_rcrocket]

I know what the word "principal" means.

Sure, you can interpret it to mean whatever you like, I guess. But do you know what the person who wrote it intended it to mean?

No.

But I can look in a dictionary and see what the word means. I'll go with that.

[_harmony]

A few points:

1. The Lamanites are, indeed, the principal ancestors of the Indians. And I know what the word "principal" means.

2. We don't know why the Doubleday edition was changed. Could be that some of the LGT theorists, of which I am not one, are having their way with editorial content of non-canonical material. So what? It could very well be that Doubleday has employed a consultant for this project who has no official Church sanction. The official publication has not changed.

3. If the intro does, indeed change, again I ask, so what? At least one of the brethren agree with the LGT theory; it doesn't matter to most.l

rcrocket

So what? Hello! Let's have a little joy here! This is progress!

[_LifeOnaPlate]

(though your view that the intro. is not scripture is debatable - but for another thread). :)

I've never viewed it as canonical anymore than the Bible Dictionary, index, topical guide, and chapter headings. The Introduction refers to the Book of Mormon as something apart from itself.

The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel.

Note the "it," indicating it is something apart from the intro. The intro is not a record of God's dealings with ancient people. You can believe the Book of Mormon is not, either, but that's not the current issue I am addressing herein.

[_Who Knows]

I know what the word "principal" means.

Sure, you can interpret it to mean whatever you like, I guess. But do you know what the person who wrote it intended it to mean?

No.

But I can look in a dictionary and see what the word means. I'll go with that.

If only it were that simple...

by the way, I think you're gay.

Look it up in the dictionary and tell me what I mean when I say that.