charity wrote:Sorry to burst your little bubble, but that is what principal ancestor always meant. That among their pedigrees , Lehi was there, and because Lehi carried the covenant promise of Abraham to these people, he was the "principal ancestor" among the millions of their ancestors.
That has always been the meaning. But becasue people are so ignorant about genealogy, they changed it to make it more understandable to the less educated (in matters of genealogy) masses.
Now, wait just a minute, Charity. This issue has come up on FAIR/MADB and the apologetic answer was that "principal" means "most important"--not numerically largest.
But this change completely obliterates that apologetic line of reasoning. "Among the ancestors" doesn't
mean, in any sense, "the most important ancestors."
You argue that "principal ancestor" has always meant merely "among the ancestors." And then you go to argue the same apologetic line referenced above. The problem is that "principal ancestor" has completely disappeared from the DoubleDay publication. It's not there, if Scott Lloyd is to be believed. So, the proposal in the DoubleDay edition is much more modest and much less falsifiable than the proposal in the official LDS edition.
It truly boggles the mind that you can seriously suggest that "among the ancestors" represents a dumbing down of the concept of "principal ancestors."
That doesn't even make any sense. It's a less controversial claim, pure and simple. Not an accurate gloss of a difficult concept.
CKS