Book of Mormon Intro - "Principal Ancestors" wording changed

[_beastie]

So how would you "label" someone who perceives him or herself as qualified to determine the "truly intelligent and educated" from those who "only assume" they are?

I know you think you can determine those here who are "less capable" posters.

Would the words arrogance and pride be appropriate, as well?

I suppose, if those assessments are biased.

And what label could be ascribed to someone who was even willing to associate his/her challengers or critics with satan?

Depends on if the challengers or critics are really associated with satan.

This topic - arrogance and pride - deserves a thread of its own, but I'm too tired tonight. Maybe tomorrow.

[_Mister Scratch]

Let me try to get through once again. The word "principal" always meant that the most important person on the pedigree was Lehi.

No, that is not correct. It cannot be correct based upon very obvious dictates of the English language, Charity. The wording said principal ancestors--i.e., plural. There is zero indication whatsoever that the text was referring to Lehi and Lehi only. Or do you have some real evidence? The truth is that the phrase always meant "the ancestors of present-day Native Americans." But, since there is no DNA evidence to back this up, the Church is backpedaling.

Because of the Abrahamic covenant. However, the word "principal" has been taken to mean, particularly of late, the number of individuals in the pedigree as a group by people who are not students of the doctrines of the Church.

Wha...? What are you talking about? To whom does the phrase "principal ancestors" refer to, Charity?

It means that some people must hang on to an idea once it is in their mind well past reasonableness. It does take more information to overcome a first impression, that is true. But some people can't seem to get past that. There are others of us who can see when we have misinterpreted something and understand the truth.

Yup, you're right: the Church has now realized how foolish it was to write "principal ancestors," hence why they're going back and revising.

[_charity]

Let me try to get through once again. The word "principal" always meant that the most important person on the pedigree was Lehi.

No, that is not correct. It cannot be correct based upon very obvious dictates of the English language, Charity. The wording said principal ancestors--I.e., plural. There is zero indication whatsoever that the text was referring to Lehi and Lehi only. Or do you have some real evidence? The truth is that the phrase always meant "the ancestors of present-day Native Americans." But, since there is no DNA evidence to back this up, the Church is backpedaling.

Oh, please. Here is the whole statement, since it seems you have forgotten it. "After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians." THEY are Lamanites. Lamanites are descendants of Lehi. How does this change anything?

Because of the Abrahamic covenant. However, the word "principal" has been taken to mean, particularly of late, the number of individuals in the pedigree as a group by people who are not students of the doctrines of the Church.

Wha...? What are you talking about? To whom does the phrase "principal ancestors" refer to, Charity?

Principal ancestors are Lehi's descendants, the Lamanites.

It means that some people must hang on to an idea once it is in their mind well past reasonableness. It does take more information to overcome a first impression, that is true. But some people can't seem to get past that. There are others of us who can see when we have misinterpreted something and understand the truth.

Yup, you're right: the Church has now realized how foolish it was to write "principal ancestors," hence why they're going back and revising.

If there is a statement in the introduction that says ANYTHING about the ancestry of the American Indian, nothing has changed. If you say that American Indians have any Lamanitish ancestiry, you have said what is important--that the American Indians are part of the covenant people. To renege or revise or backpedal would mean that ANY reference to American Indians being connected to Lamanites would be removed. If it is there, there is no revision.

[_Polygamy Porter]

Someone pass the ketchup to charity.


Put some on your toes BEFORE you stick your foot in your mouth. It will kill the taste.

[_Who Knows]

Charity - this is why no one takes you seriously. It's like you're typing with your fingers in your ears saying 'la la la, i'm not listening'.

It's been CLEARLY pointed out to you what the word 'principal' means in this context. You're trying to make it mean something in a way that it wasn't intended to mean. This has been demonstrated numerous times here on the thread. Yet you continue to completely ignore it, and sing your own tune. You're a perfect example of why we (critics) have such a hard time taking apologetics seriously. Although, I have to hand it to some of the apologists on MAD - at least some of the more reasonable ones there realize that this wording change is a good thing, as the 'principal ancestors' phrase is clearly unsupportable.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Personally, I think the Introduction of the Book of Mormon gives the impression that the people of the Book of Mormon are the main ancestors of the Native Americans as we know them today. I have never viewed the Intro as canonical, and it doesn't bother me if it was mistaken in that regard.

[_charity]

Charity - this is why no one takes you seriously. It's like you're typing with your fingers in your ears saying 'la la la, I'm not listening'.

It's been CLEARLY pointed out to you what the word 'principal' means in this context. You're trying to make it mean something in a way that it wasn't intended to mean. This has been demonstrated numerous times here on the thread. Yet you continue to completely ignore it, and sing your own tune. You're a perfect example of why we (critics) have such a hard time taking apologetics seriously. Although, I have to hand it to some of the apologists on MAD - at least some of the more reasonable ones there realize that this wording change is a good thing, as the 'principal ancestors' phrase is clearly unsupportable.

It doesn't matter how many times an erroneous statement is made. It doesn't become true. Your misinterpreations of the word "principal" won't change what it really was intended to convey. Why would I have any reason to listen to critics continually tell me that Bruce R. McConkie didn't mean what he meant? Or that the Church no longer belives that Lehi's descendants, the Lamanites, are in the pedigrees of Native Americans?

Get a grip.

[_Mercury]

Charity - this is why no one takes you seriously. It's like you're typing with your fingers in your ears saying 'la la la, I'm not listening'.

It's been CLEARLY pointed out to you what the word 'principal' means in this context. You're trying to make it mean something in a way that it wasn't intended to mean. This has been demonstrated numerous times here on the thread. Yet you continue to completely ignore it, and sing your own tune. You're a perfect example of why we (critics) have such a hard time taking apologetics seriously. Although, I have to hand it to some of the apologists on MAD - at least some of the more reasonable ones there realize that this wording change is a good thing, as the 'principal ancestors' phrase is clearly unsupportable.

It doesn't matter how many times an erroneous statement is made. It doesn't become true. Your misinterpreations of the word "principal" won't change what it really was intended to convey. Why would I have any reason to listen to critics continually tell me that Bruce R. McConkie didn't mean what he meant? Or that the Church no longer belives that Lehi's descendants, the Lamanites, are in the pedigrees of Native Americans?

Get a grip.

Are you this stupid? I doubt it. What is it that makes you so unwilling to accept the standard definition of a word and the fact that there was a drastic change made to the "market test" version of the Book of Mormon?

It does not matter how many times you say it, it still does not make it true. You are wrong, wr are right. Concede or continue to appear like an ignorant vinegary shill.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Why would I have any reason to listen to critics continually tell me that Bruce R. McConkie didn't mean what he meant?

But I've been telling you what BRM did mean, based on his own words. And that's important since he authored the Introduction (and use of "principal" therein) that is at issue here. What fight so hard against the truth?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Charity - this is why no one takes you seriously. It's like you're typing with your fingers in your ears saying 'la la la, I'm not listening'.

It's been CLEARLY pointed out to you what the word 'principal' means in this context. You're trying to make it mean something in a way that it wasn't intended to mean. This has been demonstrated numerous times here on the thread. Yet you continue to completely ignore it, and sing your own tune. You're a perfect example of why we (critics) have such a hard time taking apologetics seriously. Although, I have to hand it to some of the apologists on MAD - at least some of the more reasonable ones there realize that this wording change is a good thing, as the 'principal ancestors' phrase is clearly unsupportable.

It doesn't matter how many times an erroneous statement is made. It doesn't become true. Your misinterpreations of the word "principal" won't change what it really was intended to convey. Why would I have any reason to listen to critics continually tell me that Bruce R. McConkie didn't mean what he meant? Or that the Church no longer belives that Lehi's descendants, the Lamanites, are in the pedigrees of Native Americans?

Get a grip.

Are you this stupid? I doubt it. What is it that makes you so unwilling to accept the standard definition of a word and the fact that there was a drastic change made to the "market test" version of the Book of Mormon?

It does not matter how many times you say it, it still does not make it true. You are wrong, wr are right. Concede or continue to appear like an ignorant vinegary shill.

One man's clarification is another man's drastic change, I guess.