Book of Mormon Intro - "Principal Ancestors" wording changed

[_Runtu]

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.

OK, I hate to be the English Nazi, but "principal" means the leader of a school OR is an adjective meaning "first, primary, most important."

"Principle" means "fundamental law or doctrine."

[_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.

OK, I hate to be the English Nazi, but "principal" means the leader of a school OR is an adjective meaning "first, primary, most important."

"Principle" means "fundamental law or doctrine."

So it was never spelled "principle"? Fine, ruin my apologist dreams.

[_Who Knows]

OK, I hate to be the English Nazi, but "principal" means the leader of a school OR is an adjective meaning "first, primary, most important."

"Principle" means "fundamental law or doctrine."

Woops. Thread title corrected...

[_Yoda]

No change has been made officially, the Doubleday edition not being a publication of the Church.

Oh, come now. Are you saying that the Church is allowing an unauthorized vendor to publish its core canon, and make unauthorized changes to the text?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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.

But it is useful to know what the author (BRM) of the Introduction meant by "principal" ancestor, and I think from BRM's quotes above that he understood "principal" to mean dominant or primary.

[_bcspace]

No change has been made officially, the Doubleday edition not being a publication of the Church.

Oh, come now. Are you saying that the Church is allowing an unauthorized vendor to publish its core canon, and make unauthorized changes to the text?

Not at all. But I do notice that the Reader's Edition is not published by the Church. Therefore, it is not official in any capacity, canon or doctrine.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

No change has been made officially, the Doubleday edition not being a publication of the Church.

Oh, come now. Are you saying that the Church is allowing an unauthorized vendor to publish its core canon, and make unauthorized changes to the text?

Not at all. But I do notice that the Reader's Edition is not published by the Church. Therefore, it is not official in any capacity, canon or doctrine.

True, it is not official canon, but I'm sure Doubleday didn't make the change themselves. Why would someone at Doubleday even think to change that? They took direction from somebody from the church, and I can guarantee it wasn't a random ward member. It was someone in authority with the priesthood keys.

[_Sethbag]

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.

In other words, who cares what the Prophets, Seers, and Revelators meant when they wrote what they wrote, what matters is what the Oxford English Dictionary allows me to justify based on the specific words used.

BCSpace, you're playing word games trying to "win" and be able to continue seeing your bankrupt belief system as still plausible. When faced with an uncomfortable reality, you choose to parse words and play language lawyer rather than reevaluating whether or not you might have gotten it all wrong. You do the exact same stuff with regards to this Earth's natural history and the origin of man, the Fall of Adam, Garden of Eden stuff, etc. Can't you see that reality is what it is, regardless of what word games you can use to score your little points here and there?

And what is the sense in trying to maintain the form of belief when the substance has been eviscerated? What sense is there in clinging to the notion that Joseph Smith's church is still "true", for some definition of "true", when you don't even believe what Joseph Smith taught anymore? I swear, you guys are willing to give away almost anything in the face of a harsh reality, so long as you can cling to the notion that the church is, ultimately, still "true".

[_bcspace]

Not at all. But I do notice that the Reader's Edition is not published by the Church. Therefore, it is not official in any capacity, canon or doctrine.

True, it is not official canon, but I'm sure Doubleday didn't make the change themselves. Why would someone at Doubleday even think to change that? They took direction from somebody from the church, and I can guarantee it wasn't a random ward member. It was someone in authority with the priesthood keys.

That is likely the case. But it doesn't change the fact that the Church doesn't consider it to be official by it's own definitions of what is and is not official.

In other words, who cares what the Prophets, Seers, and Revelators meant when they wrote what they wrote, what matters is what the Oxford English Dictionary allows me to justify based on the specific words used.

The real question is what do all of them think together and can agree on (D&C 107). What BRM thought by himself is of no consquence relative to the Church as a whole.

BCSpace, you're playing word games trying to "win" and be able to continue seeing your bankrupt belief system as still plausible. When faced with an uncomfortable reality, you choose to parse words and play language lawyer rather than reevaluating whether or not you might have gotten it all wrong. You do the exact same stuff with regards to this Earth's natural history and the origin of man, the Fall of Adam, Garden of Eden stuff, etc. Can't you see that reality is what it is, regardless of what word games you can use to score your little points here and there?

I think you're doing exactly the same thing you are accusing me of here. Difference is, I've actually been able to have my cake and eat it to.

And what is the sense in trying to maintain the form of belief when the substance has been eviscerated? What sense is there in clinging to the notion that Joseph Smith's church is still "true", for some definition of "true", when you don't even believe what Joseph Smith taught anymore? I swear, you guys are willing to give away almost anything in the face of a harsh reality, so long as you can cling to the notion that the church is, ultimately, still "true"

You problem has always been that you must build a strawman in order for your favorite arguments to stand.

[_Trevor]

Now that we know what Bruce R. McConkie meant when he wrote the intro, why are we still arguing? He represented the principal LDS view (sorry, I couldn't resist) of his time--the one handed down from the early days of the Church. Whether or not DNA proves it incorrect, there is nothing that I am aware of outside of the Book of Mormon, certainly nothing that is scientifically verifiable in any way, to suggest that the Book of Mormon is right in its 19th century vision of an ancient Israelite civilization of some notable size in the Americas.