Book of Mormon Intro - "Principal Ancestors" wording changed

[_huckelberry]

Charity, it seems fair I should consider your observation that the Book of Mormon is not required to conform to my expectations. I should try to connect with the books own intentions, at least that make sense to me.

You characterize the work as a religious testament whose limited historical interest is all related to the royal line. I, perhaps too quickly, think it spends a good bit of space on details of wars which certainly is political history. Not too mention following the story of a royal line is both political history and a very common approach to the story of history. I would expect an explanation of how the kings got established. It is after all quite a big jump to go from being a tiny enclave of immigrants in a foreign culture to being king. I would expect a story concentrating on the story of the royal line to mention how that happened. Perhaps they would not say how in just the way I would expect, but silence?

How far can stylization of a story go to reflect special focus? It is possible of course that with a special focus a story might leave out suprising things.

What do you see as the important focus the book has which would occasion leaving out how the Kings got started, how they established their independence? (I mentioned that not thinking it completely impossible just that I was puzzled that it was of such small interest as not to get mentioned in the story)

I might mention that we are all familiar with another genuine ancient history with extreme focus on religious dimension of history, the Old Testament. It seems hard to imagine that history avoiding the problems in the process of establishing kings as an introduction to its detailing of a divided pair of kingship lines.

[_Mercury]

How many friendly reminders does merc get? This is the not the first time he/she has called me the same name, and gotten the same friendly reminder.

Tell you what...when you start coming around to what reality means ill drop the moniker you deserve, as you will not deserve that name any longer.

Welcome to the Fair and Balanced board.

[_charity]

I would expect an explanation of how the kings got established. It is after all quite a big jump to go from being a tiny enclave of immigrants in a foreign culture to being king. I would expect a story concentrating on the story of the royal line to mention how that happened. Perhaps they would not say how in just the way I would expect, but silence?

What do you see as the important focus the book has which would occasion leaving out how the Kings got started, how they established their independence? (I mentioned that not thinking it completely impossible just that I was puzzled that it was of such small interest as not to get mentioned in the story)

I might mention that we are all familiar with another genuine ancient history with extreme focus on religious dimension of history, the Old Testament. It seems hard to imagine that history avoiding the problems in the process of establishing kings as an introduction to its detailing of a divided pair of kingship lines.

This is an example of where too much is assumed from a superficial reading of a test. The word "king" is used and all of a sudden we conjur up in our minds palaces and wealth and slaves and all other Camelot kinds of things. But notice what King Benjamin does. He works for his own support. When he goes to address his subjects, they can all be gathered together and hear his voice from their tents, which face an elevated speaking platform. How many people do you think this means?

And we know how the kings got started. Nephi, and after him they called their kings "nephi's."

[_huckelberry]

Charity points out the error of conjurin up visions of palaces wealth slaves etc with the title king.

I can see that could be a mistake. I do not remember making it however. I was speaking of indepence from the political military power of the native inhabitants.

[Guest]

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.

My immediate response to this is: So?

So now there can be no question as to what the Church teaches and what indivdual opinions are. Makes debating smoother and more accurate for both sides.

The distinction between official and unofficial doctrine is a relatively recent phenomenon made for apologetic purposes.

Not really. The basics have been around since D&C 107. Since I've been a missionary and afterwards in Teacher preparation classes and further preisthood callings, I've noticed a distinct line drawn between official doctrine and opinion. The span is at least 30 years.

It was designed to “officially” distance the Church from embarrassing statements and beliefs by former Apostles and Prophets.

So?

If a modern prophet expresses an opinion I get lambasted for saying it his opinion. Allen Wyatt at FAIR tore me a new butthole for saying this.

I am not Allen Wyatt or FAIR.

I’m told I have to accept and respect the “Lord’s anointed” because they are set apart to receive revelation for the Church. With this happened there was never any concern as to whether or not what the “Lord’s anointed” said was “officially” binding doctrine or not. The fact that they believed X meant a lot to the membership and nobody dared argue with it.

I am reminded of an incident....

Even more instructive may be the example set by Mitt Romney's father, George Romney. In 1964 the elder Romney came under fire from the right wing of the Republican Party for his progressive views on race. He also bumped up against LDS Church officials: LDS apostle Delbert Stapley warned Romney that a civil rights bill he favored was "vicious legislation" that contradicted God's "curse upon the negro." Romney did not back down from his support of equal rights, despite obvious political and ecclesiastical pressure. The stance he took did not compromise his standing as a faithful Mormon. In keeping with Mormon commitment to individual discernment, Stapley included in his letter to Romney the acknowledgment that "I cannot deny you the right of your position if it represents your true belief and feelings."
A Mormon president? The LDS difference by Laurie F. Maffly-Kipp

So I have problems with this apologetic two-step. The traditional LDS understanding about Indians and Lamanites, has been shot out of the water.

So has evolution. Surely you are aware of the debates the apostles of the last century had on the matter? The question remains "Is it official doctrine?"

Most Mormons don’t care what can be tied down as “official” because most know it is just an apologetic charade that was never an issue in the early Church.

LOL! Apparently you don't belive in the antiMormon charade of internet vs chapel Mormons. Good for you!

The fact that the Lord’s anointed had led the Church astray for so long is enough to give most Mormons the creeps. As recently as the 1970’s Spencer Kimball was speaking at conference, addressing the entire Church as Prophet of God, propagating not only the traditional Lamanite = Indians falsehood, but that Indians who had been joining the Church were experiencing pigmentation changes in their skin.

You sure that's not 1960 or 1954? In any case, it still leads us back to D&C 107 and the latest date principle for doctrine. You're now speaking as if you believe the prophets mouths are controlled by God which is suprising since I normally consider you to be a well above average antiMormon.

[_charity]

Charity points out the error of conjurin up visions of palaces wealth slaves etc with the title king.

I can see that could be a mistake. I do not remember making it however. I was speaking of indepence from the political military power of the native inhabitants.

You can read of many instances where the Nephites were in bondage to the Lamanites. And remember, it was only a short while after they arrived in the New World where Nephite and Lamanite became merely terms of political affiliation and not lineage. "Lamanites" could have included many other ethnically different peoples.

[_guy sajer]

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.

Hello, Rollo. Long time no see. You haven't changed a bit. Still making strawman arguments.

Where do we read in the Book of Mormon Intro that "dominant blood" means DNA? I did a word search and you know what? DNA never appears in the Book of Mormon. "Dominant" means just what "principal" means in the same context. Most important.

You are a smart person, Rollo. Please don't pretend ignorance for the sake of making a point.

Charity, based on several data points now, I'm convinced that you don't know what a strawman argument is. That, and a good one either.

Rollo said the argument is that the American Indians are Hebrews and that is DNA in the cells. The argument really is that one or more the ancestral pedigree slots is taken up by Lehi.

So yes, saying that the Book of Mormon calls the American Indians Hebrews with Hebrew DNA, and then proving that American Indians are not Hebrew is setting up a strawman and shooting it down.

It's only a strawman if one accepts your premise, which I think that a whole passle of evidence shows conclusively to be wrong. Among general Church membership, you are only one of a relative few who would make this argument (and a good chunk of the rest probably post on MAD Board). The doctrine believed and taught for over 1.5 centuries in the Mormon Church by Prophets, Apostles, and rank and file has been that the Native Americans (and even including Polynesians--hence we understand the Church's interest in Polynesia and the PCC) are the direct and PRINCIPAL blood descendents of the Lehites. Therefore, it follows that Native Americans should carry Hebrew DNA, which they don't.

If anyone is spinning straw here, my dear, it is you.

[_why me]

On the MAD board I stated that when the Introduction was written in 1980 or 1981 most likely Bruce R's influence was felt. And most likely it is representative of the hemispheric model that Bruce R. advocated. However, it should be kept in mind that the hemispheric model is just one of two models that has been discussed in LDS circles. The other being LGT. The LGT theory has been around for quite some time and it has been discussed as a possibility.

At the time of the writing of the introduction the hemispheric model held sway in church circles but the LGT did not go away. As of this date no one really can say for certainty who are the Book of Mormon people and just where the Book of Mormon took place. The common understanding is in Mesoamerica, however.

Was the Introduction a mistake? Perhaps so. But it is an introduction and nothing more. It is not canon. As time moves on, much will happen to current understandings and changes will be made according to new possibilities. There is nothing wrong with this idea. It is perfectly natural. There is much that we don't know and the LDS church doesn't have all the answers. Speculation is quite natural on the exmo and mo side of arguments.

[_Sethbag]

At the time of the writing of the introduction the hemispheric model held sway in church circles but the LGT did not go away. As of this date no one really can say for certainty who are the Book of Mormon people and just where the Book of Mormon took place. The common understanding is in Mesoamerica, however.

Too bad the purveyors of this "revealed religion" can't get an answer to anything at all from God, eh? I mean, why don't the Q12 + 1FP gather in the upper room of the temple and ask God whether LGT is correct, and where Zarahemla is, and so forth? Are they afraid God won't answer them?

Was the Introduction a mistake? Perhaps so. But it is an introduction and nothing more. It is not canon. As time moves on, much will happen to current understandings and changes will be made according to new possibilities. There is nothing wrong with this idea. It is perfectly natural. There is much that we don't know and the LDS church doesn't have all the answers. Speculation is quite natural on the exmo and mo side of arguments.

I bolded your response right here. "It's perfectly naturalistic" I'd rather say, because that's it precisely - this church gets its "revealed Truth" through entirely naturalistic means. That is, real human beings make it up as they go along. Or, at least, real human beings made it up at one point in time, and the leadership of today just do their best to maintain the status quo, subject to the caveat that some patently untrue things have been trimmed away over time, like Adam/God, blood atonement, moon quakers, etc. But seriously, "it's perfectly naturalistic", although not what you said, describes the LDS church to a T.

[_beastie]

King Benjamin worked because he chose to, as a statement of ideology. The Book of Mormon also contains stories of kings who lived in luxury.

But the real problem with the Book of Mormon's political system is as Huck said - it is the political machinations described therein. It is one polity warring with another and then possessing their city. It is one leader also being considered the political leader of another, distant polity. It is a polity having a standing army. It is wars that extended across a distant region.

For more details, see my essay here:

http://zarahemlacitylimits.com/wiki/ind ... _and_Power

by the way, Charity, do you believe that one can see buried treasures by looking at a stone in a hat?