Book of Mormon Intro - "Principal Ancestors" wording changed

[_Dr. Shades]

Sorry to burst your little bubble, but that is what principal ancestor always meant.

Oceania is at war with Eurasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.

[_Yoda]

I don't believe that requires "Hebrew" DNA. What it requires is Lehi filling one of the slots on the pedigree chart.

But, Charity, if this is the case, then the word, "principal", should still stand, and stand proudly, in my opinion.

Again, I don't understand the need for the change.

I don't know why they did it.

That's interesting since your original argument was that the change was made to make the phrase more understandable.

But it does seem interesting to me that now that it was changed, suddenly the critic argument has changed to "we always understood that 'principal' meant most important, and didn't have anything to do with percentage of DNA in the cells." Talk about shifting sands!

How is this shifting sands? A definition is a definition! And this is a definition we agree on.

Based on the agreed definition, why should the relationship between the Lamanites and the American Indian be deemphasized?

[_Runtu]

We didn't "want" it to mean that. It did mean that.

Apparently, McConkie disagreed with your assessment. Either way, we weren't the ones making the argument, so accusing us of shifting sands because you guys changed your own argument is, frankly, weird.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I don't know why they did it. But it does seem interesting to me that now that it was changed, suddenly the critic argument has changed to "we always understood that 'principal' meant most important, and didn't have anytjhing to do with percentage of DNA in the cells." Talk about shifting sands!

But BRM, the likely author of the Introduction, is very clear (from my quote above) that the dominant blood lineage of American Indians is Hebrew, which has everything to do with "DNA in the cells." But science has shown this to be false; hence, the need to deal with that troublesome Introduction.

[Guest]

As for the vote, it has nothing to do with "truth," but with what the Mormon Church and it's leaders have taught for well over 1.5 centuries, and something that you appear to deny--that American Indians are the direct descendents of Father Lehi.

Is this really the best you can do? Gotta say, I'm underwhelmed.

Either you can't read, or you are being deliberately obtuse. I believe, and I have said over and over, that I do believe it that at least MOST, if not all, American Indians are direct descendants of Father Lehi.

I don't believe that requires "Hebrew" DNA. What it requires is Lehi filling one of the slots on the pedigree chart.

Now, do you get it?

"Are you being deliberately obtuse?" Wow, you must have seen "Shawshank Redemption."

This has nothing to do with what YOU believe, it has to do with your revisionist interpretation of what "principal" means in the (now former) intro to the Book of Mormon. You appear to be arguing that the word means something other than what Mormon Prophets and Apostles have taught for 150 years + it means.

Here's the main point: If indeed it's true that the Church has officially changed the Book of Mormon intro to make an obvious change in meaning (obvious to everyone except Charity and her fellow cogdis practitioners), then this is an admission by the Church itself that the Mormon Prophets and Apostles have got it wrong all this time, or at the least, they are hedging their bet, just in case the Prophets and Apostles got it wrong (which doesn't show a great deal of faith in Prophetic utterance).

Yes, I get it Charity. You are backed into a corner, and you are thrashing around mightly for some face saving method to avoid the embarrasment of admitting that the Lord's inspired have got it wrong for so many years. DNA Trump's Prophetic Statement.

It is YOU that's being obtuse, and quite honestly, I don't think you have a clue.

Oh, and it takes a brave person (incredibly self-deluded, but brave) to declare she thinks that MOST, if not all, American Indians are descedent from Father Lehi. (A position that also puts her outside the mainstream of her fellow Mopologists.) DNA doesn't lie. I hope you don't mind if I take science's word over your own.

[_bcspace]

But BRM, the likely author of the Introduction, is very clear (from my quote above) that the dominant blood lineage of American Indians is Hebrew, which has everything to do with "DNA in the cells."

I agree completely. This is what the previous generations have understood though I think you'll be hard pressed to find such enshrined in official doctrine.

But science has shown this to be false; hence, the need to deal with that troublesome Introduction.

And I (as far as I know, I was the first to point this out) have noted that the definition of the word 'principal' can include that which does not have to speak to genetics (such as 'most important'). Therefore, as long as there isn't any official commentary on principal ancestors implying genetics descent, no revision or clarification is required.

[_Yoda]

And I (as far as I know, I was the first to point this out) have noted that the definition of the word 'principal' can include that which does not have to speak to genetics (such as 'most important'). Therefore, as long as there isn't any official commentary on principal ancestors implying genetics descent, no revision or clarification is required.

This being the case, why do you think the change was made, then?

[_Pokatator]

Charity wrote in response to CKS:

You are neglecting the concept of the covenant race. Abraham was promised certain blessings that would go to his literal descendants. It was important in the days of the children of Israel and is still important. Today faithful LDS get patriarchal blessings. The major purpose of the blessing is to declare the lineage of the person. This is why it is important that ONE of the slots on the family tree is filled by a descendant of Abraham.

Most people don't really understand the numbers involved in a genealogy. Eveyr generation doubles, going back. By 20 generations back, which isn't even 1,000 years, the number of spaces on a family tree is in the millions. Pick out any one individual American Indian and how many of those slots will be filled by Lehite descendants and how many will be Asian?

But if there is only one descendant of Abraham, then the individual is part of the covenant. That is the principal ancestor.

So a Patriarchal Blessing is more reliable than DNA? I think the discernment, inspiration, and implementation of PBs are questionable. Just read the BoilerPlate thread and other threads on PBs:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... arch#78424

My PB had about as much discernment as Hinckley had with Mark Hoffman.

Charity quoted:

So much ignorance, so little time. *sigh*

2. Patriarchal blessings: "Patriarch blessings contemplate an inspired declaration of the lineage of the recipient, and aslo when so moved upon the theSpirit, a inspired and prophetic statement about the life mission of the recipient." MD (1979)p. 558

Later in response to Guy, Charity wrote:

Either you can't read, or you are being deliberately obtuse. I believe, and I have said over and over, that I do believe it that at least MOST, if not all, American Indians are direct descendants of Father Lehi.

I don't believe that requires "Hebrew" DNA. What it requires is Lehi filling one of the slots on the pedigree chart.

Now, do you get it?

So DNA is not important, or required, just a requirement of filling a slot on a pedigree chart. Does the slot need to be accurately filled or will any slot do? I guess a PB can just randomly put me in a pedigree slot any place the discernment decides regardless of my DNA. Is this the inspired declaration in the quote above, is that all that is required an inspired declaration? This doesn't seem to give genealogy any reason to be accurate to a blood line so why bother with genealogy?

Charity I know my response is quite convoluted (maybe on purpose and maybe not) and I am posting "among" all this ignorance and I know you have so little time but could you straighten me out, enlighten me, give me some of your discernment?

[_bcspace]

And I (as far as I know, I was the first to point this out) have noted that the definition of the word 'principal' can include that which does not have to speak to genetics (such as 'most important'). Therefore, as long as there isn't any official commentary on principal ancestors implying genetics descent, no revision or clarification is required.

This being the case, why do you think the change was made, then?

No change has been made officially, the Doubleday edition not being a publication of the Church. But what if an official change is made? Well, we now have to distinguish between the 1981 edition and the new edition. And instead of just using the correct apologetic on 'principal', we now have to deal with two different editions as well as the same apologetic on principal. As waste of time imho.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

I think it's also important to point out that there are two forms of the word principle. One is spelled principal, and it means "Boss of a school, or leader of many students." Perhaps the word principle was simple misspelled in 1981 and what was really meant was "lamanites are the principals of the Native Americans" meaning they are the leaders in educating the Native Americans about the gospel. There are very few Principals over multitudes of students, so this would make sense since there are very few Lamanites and tons of Native Americans. Have any apologists come up with the principle/principal theory? If not, it would be awesome to be the originator of a new apologetic excuse.