Book of Mormon Intro - "Principal Ancestors" wording changed

[_Who Knows]

1. I believe that BRM wrote the Introduction, including the line that the Lamanites "are the principal ancestors of the American Indians."

2. BRM wrote this about the American Indians in Mormon Doctrine: "Chiefly they were Lamanites ...."

3. BRM even goes on to discuss the "pure Lamanitish blood" (although he acknowledges some "dilution") of the American Indians: "[F]or the great majority of the descendants of the original inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere, the dominant blood lineage is that of Israel."

None of these three meets the well established requirements for something the Church considers official. Not saying you're wrong, but I am saying that if you want to establish what the Church means, or even if the Church has defined what it means, then you'll have to look to official sources.

Well, we know what BRM meant. We know that the church accepted his Introduction. We know how most people (who aren't drinking the LDS kool-aid) would interpret the 'principal ancestors' phrase. And then we know it was changed in the doubleday edition to 'among' - which pretty much kills the idea that the word principal was ever intended to mean what the apologists now claim it to mean.

[_Mister Scratch]

And good for them! It's just too bad they did it on the sly, and not universally.

Another of the same old anti-arguments. "It's all hidden and sly and deceitful."

Seems like pubishing something is pretty much out in the open.

The trouble with this is that the Book of Mormon is supposed to be canonical, word-of-God scripture, and as such it should not need these kinds of revisions and clarifications. I suspect that you know that, hence your apparent need to engage in these kinds of sophistries.

Or maybe you were expecting that the home teachers and visiting teachers make it a part of their lesson for next month. How about a full page ad in the New York Times? Or maybe by a 30 minute infomercial?

You guys are a hoot!

No; what would be nice is an admission from the Brethren that many of these silly claims about the "Lamanites" were false.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

None of these three meets the well established requirements for something the Church considers official.

I don't disagree. I do not see the Introduction as part of the canon. Nevertheless, the "principal" statement is in there (or at least was), and the Church ought to acknowledge it is a mistake (rather than spin it in a way that suggests it is not a mistake, as apologists tend to do). The Introduction was written by BRM, who clearly meant "principal" to mean dominant blood relative. Science today shows this to be wrong. So the Church should simply admit it's wrong and openly change the language. They can just blame it all on BRM.

[_guy sajer]

None of these three meets the well established requirements for something the Church considers official.

I don't disagree. I do not see the Introduction as part of the canon. Nevertheless, the "principal" statement is in there (or at least was), and the Church ought to acknowledge it is a mistake (rather than spin it in a way that suggests it is not a mistake, as apologists tend to do). The Introduction was written by BRM, who clearly meant "principal" to mean dominant blood relative. Science today shows this to be wrong. So the Church should simply admit it's wrong and openly change the language. They can just blame it all on BRM.

C'mon Rollo, you're letting him off the hook. Don't buy into the "it's not official" spin.

Do any of us here really believe that if the Bretheren did not agree with BRM on this point that they would allow this to be printed in the "keystone" of their religion for decades? This didn't slip by the Brethren unnoticed. They argeed with it; that's why it's been there. Only now do they have reason to doubt it; and it wasn't revelation that gave them pause, but scientific evidence. Science proved the prophets wrong, and that sticks in the Moplogists' craw.

The "its not doctrine" schtick doesn't fly.

The fact that Prophets and apostles, lower level officials, and the rank and file all believed and taught this made it doctrine. In his dedicatory talk at the Guayquil, Ecuador temple, for example, Wrinkley yet again refered to the natives as "Lamanites." If it weren't for the DNA evidence, this wouldn't even be an issue, and Charity and bcspace and all the other mopologists would still be proclaiming that Native Americans to be Lamanites (OK, Charity still is, but she's a special case).

bcspace is spinning out of his ass.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Do any of us here really believe that if the Bretheren did not agree with BRM on this point that they would allow this to be printed in the "keystone" of their religion for decades? This didn't slip by the Brethren unnoticed. They argeed with it; that's why it's been there. Only now do they have reason to doubt it; and it wasn't revelation that gave them pause, but scientific evidence. Science proved the prophets wrong, and that sticks in the Moplogists' craw.

Agreed, but it still isn't part of LDS canon. I think you're spot on about this, though: neither the Church nor the Brethren ever admit to an error, and to acknowledge that the "principal" language is a mistake would be admitting to a pretty big error, in my opinion. That's why the best anyone can expect is a quiet (without any fanfare) wording change in the Introduction (which apparently has been done in the Doubleday version).

[_Trevor]

Illogical. The 'principal' view of many LDS in the past may also have been that blacks were not valiant in the preexistence but such was never the official position of the Church.

No, McConkie's view was enshrined in the scriptures, whereas this piece of repugnant teaching you liken it to never was. There is a big difference.

[_Runtu]

Illogical. The 'principal' view of many LDS in the past may also have been that blacks were not valiant in the preexistence but such was never the official position of the Church.

No, McConkie's view was enshrined in the scriptures, whereas this piece of repugnant teaching you liken it to never was. There is a big difference.

No, this piece of repugnant teaching was enshrined in the 1949 First Presidency statement on "the negro."

[_Trevor]

No, this piece of repugnant teaching was enshrined in the 1949 First Presidency statement on "the negro."

Touche, I suppose. Although I doubt anyone is reading old FPSs to catch up on their doctrine, whereas the scriptures are constantly brought forward as the standard by which doctrine should be measured.

And, yes, I know that the Introduction is not chapter and verse, but there is only so much hairsplitting I can take.

[_Runtu]

No, this piece of repugnant teaching was enshrined in the 1949 First Presidency statement on "the negro."

Touche, I suppose. Although I doubt anyone is reading old FPSs to catch up on their doctrine, whereas the scriptures are constantly brought forward as the standard by which doctrine should be measured.

And, yes, I know that the Introduction is not chapter and verse, but there is only so much hairsplitting I can take.

Yep, if a publication bearing the church's copyright is not official, nothing is. If you think about it that nothing is official except the canonized scriptures, prophets, seers, and revelators are superfluous. After all, they can't be counted on to give anything but opinion, and you and I could do that just as well.

[_Trevor]

None of these three meets the well established requirements for something the Church considers official. Not saying you're wrong, but I am saying that if you want to establish what the Church means, or even if the Church has defined what it means, then you'll have to look to official sources.

Ah, yes, "official." The last refuge of the LDS apologist. So few things are official that one is left with the dessicated skeleton of Mormonism, barely a shadow of itself, by the time everything is pared down to "official." It is a fine category to excuse the LDS Church from many an embarrassing thing, but the little circle of "official" teachings bears small resemblance to the Mormonism we grew up with.