DiscussMormonism.com

I'm not a frequent visitor to the Tanners' website, but in browsing MAD this morning, I read Tanyan's thread about the new issue of the SLC Messenger, and I decided to give it a look-see (mostly because I was interested in the bit about Nibley and his footnotes). But in reading the article about the "principal/among" change to the Book of Mormon's intro, I learned that this wasn't the only change:

Another change that is being made in the Book of Mormon Introduction has not received as much attention. Carrie Moore reported:

Another change in the book's introduction may be of interest to those who question whether Latter-day Saints are Christians, but church officials declined comment about when that change was made.

The second sentence of the introduction in many editions says the book is "a record of God's dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fullness of the everlasting gospel."

The 2004 edition produced by Doubleday for non-Latter-day Saints omits the phrase, "as does the Bible." A church spokesman declined comment on when the change was first made or an explanation of why (Deseret News, Nov. 8, 2007 [link]).

One possible explanation could be that the statement would raise questions in the reader's mind as to the need for the Book of Mormon if the Bible already contains the "fullness of the everlasting gospel."

I followed along with great interest the discussions on here regarding the Lamanite ancestry change to the Book of Mormon's intro, but I must have missed any and all mention of this other change. What is the rationale for omitting reference of the Bible as containing the fulness of the gospel?

I don't know the answer, but I think the Bible has become a moving target. With the publication of the wildly-popular NIV, which I use all the time, I think that what the Bible says and doesn't say is open to debate with all its variations. But good catch.

Strange. Tanyan's thread was on the first page at MAD when I read it just a few short minutes ago, but it has now fallen to page 4.

?!

TrashcanMan79 wrote:Strange. Tanyan's thread was on the first page at MAD when I read it just a few short minutes ago, but it has now fallen to page 4.

?!

I thought I was going crazy. lol. Glad you noticed too.

I think the most recent post was deleted.

CaliforniaKid wrote:I think the most recent post was deleted.

In taking another look at Tanyan's thread, you're definitely right. The post that was deleted was the one that brought my attention to the article about Nibley. The post was basically a direct link to the article with the question "what are your thoughts" or something along those lines. Why MAD would delete something like that, I haven't the faintest.

This Huggins piece is very interesting. I haven't spent a lot of time checking Nibley footnotes, but I have paid a lot of attention to his essay "The Meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers," which in my opinion had some useful features but was extremely irresponsible in some of the conclusions it drew and in the ways the documents in question were interpreted. In fact, there is at least one argument in the essay that's so contrived that it has to be either disingenuous or the product of writing under the influence.

I see that Huggins also deals John Gee a blow or two in a footnote on page 11. Gee is said to be an "over-enthusiastic" apologist who emulates Nibley's "misuse of sources".

CaliforniaKid wrote:This Huggins piece is very interesting...

I agree. Let's see what happens if you ask the folks on MAD what their thoughts on it are. ;)

TrashcanMan79 wrote:

CaliforniaKid wrote:This Huggins piece is very interesting...

I agree. Let's see what happens if you ask the folks on MAD what their thoughts on it are. ;)

Done. ;-)

It's their mainstreaming business plan. At some point in the futre they'll join the RLDS and state the Book of Mormon is inspired ficiton. LDS Inc. knows business, and in order to be viable well into the future claiming the Book of Mormon is historical isn't going to work any more. I would not be surprised to see sometime in the next 50 years if they move that way. It mostly depends on how many members LDS Inc. hemorrhages during that time period.