Book of Mormon Intro - "Principal Ancestors" wording changed

[_Who Knows]

I have interpreted it as they did.

CFR please.

[_Mister Scratch]

Oh, please. Here is the whole statement, since it seems you have forgotten it.

I really do appreciate your condescension, Charity. It is amazing how your desire to defend the Church brings out this ugly side of you. You would think that a love for the Church would make you calm, and at peace in your heart! Oh, well---so much for that. "Pure love of Christ" indeed.

"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 what you are saying is inaccurate. I notice that you omitted the part from the introduction which discusses the Jaredites---a group which certain Mopologists seem to think figure prominently into the whole DNA equation. Further, all of the Nephites (who would much more accurately be described as Lehi's descendants than the Lamanites, right?) were killed off... You really are grasping at straws here, dearie.

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.

Uh, no. "Principal" in this instance means primary. In other words, we would expect to be able to find signs of Israelite DNA in any of the indigenous peoples today. This is *always* how the Book of Mormon has been understood. It is how I always understood it; it is how my dear mother and her parents understood it too. For your explanation to hold up, Charity, you will in effect have to label countless LDS as morons and idiots for having believed this interpretation. So go ahead: let's here it, Ms. "Pure Love of Christ": tell me how both myself and all of my devout relatives are complete idiots for totally misunderstanding the intro to the Book of Mormon.

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.

There is a big lexical difference between "part of" and "principal," Charity. Are you "part of" a parent to your children, or are you a "principal" caretaker? Are you a "principal" tithe payer, or only "partly" there of? I think you know what I mean. Time to concede, my dear, lest you put your eternal salvation any further in jeopardy with this sophistry. My arm is already raised to the square....

[_charity]

But we all know what BRM meant by "principal": "dominant blood lineage."

What did "blood lineage" mean in 1979 or whenever the introduction was written? I think your interpretation of that phrase as percentage of DNA is not what Elder McConkie meant.

Dominant, most important, Abraham covenant.

[_charity]

I have interpreted it as they did.

CFR please.

You have said I didn't understand what they meant. You made the claim first. You prove what their interpretation was. Rollo tried, but he missed the target.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

You have focused on the word "first." How do you think Elder McConkie meant it? First, as in Adam was the first man? What do you mean by "first?"

The common understanding of Lamanites by church members at that time period was that the Americas were settled by the Book of Mormon people. Therefore, if I grew up in that culture (I was 7 at the time, and I know what I was taught in primary) and read BRM's intro my instinctive reaction would be that he meant the surviving Lamanites are the primary ancestors of the modern Native Americans, which fits in with Mormon thinking at the time. If I was to examine the word "Principal" in an obtuse way, I would see it meant "first," which means the Lamanites were the first ancestors, just as Adam was the first human on Earth. All native Americans can trace their ancestry back to the Lamanites. That's how I would read "first" in the context of 1979 church teachings.

Now, can you show me any where that the Apostles ever said, "This is how we interpret 'principal' in the introduction to the Book of Mormon." I have interpreted it as they did. And 'among' doesn't ruin anything. If the American Indians are descended in any degree ( 1 one ancestor or 50 or 1,000) from a Lamanite, those Lehite ancestors are the most important, because of the Abrahamic covenant.

Not those exact words. But you know what they were teaching back then. You know the attitudes and culture. The Book of Mormon events took place in North, South, Central America and the Pacific Islands and all dark skinned people living in these areas are direct descendant of the Lamanites. Do I really need to find refences? Is the institutional memory of the church that short?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

A lot of people in the Church, most especially in the past, have likely viewed most Native Americans as somewhat of a direct link to the Lamanites. Some don't, however, and to be honest, it really doesn't mean much to me, personally speaking.

Example: When Hugh Nibley was a young primary lad he was told by a teacher that the Wasatch mountain range was a direct result of the earthquakes in 3 Nephi. He didn't particularly buy that interpretation then, and as he grew up he disregarded it as a mistake. I can sympathize.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

A lot of people in the Church, most especially in the past, have likely viewed most Native Americans as somewhat of a direct link to the Lamanites. Some don't, however, and to be honest, it really doesn't mean much to me, personally speaking.

Example: When Hugh Nibley was a young primary lad he was told by a teacher that the Wasatch mountain range was a direct result of the earthquakes in 3 Nephi. He didn't particularly buy that interpretation then, and as he grew up he disregarded it as a mistake. I can sympathize.

True. There are a lot of wacky theories out there, and some serious nut jobs within the church. For example, I had a temple preparation teacher who taught that God was once a man just like us, which is a farily normal belief of most Mormons, but this guy really elaborated on the whole concept. He obviously put a lot of thought into it. He said that a long time ago God probably sat in a temple preparation class just like the one we were sitting in, only he was on a different planet, and he was flesh and bones just like us, except he didn't have blood. And he probably went home to the house he lived on at his planet, and he studied his scriptures in his living room, just like we do, etc. etc. His elaboration really made the whole thing sound rediculous. Maybe he was an exmo in disguise;)

[_Rollo Tomasi]

But we all know what BRM meant by "principal": "dominant blood lineage."

What did "blood lineage" mean in 1979 or whenever the introduction was written? I think your interpretation of that phrase as percentage of DNA is not what Elder McConkie meant.

Dominant, most important, Abraham covenant.

Huh? Dominant=most important? Under your interpretation, BRM's use of "dominant blood lineage" means the most minor contribution to one's ancestry. Just keep digging the hole deeper, charity.

[_Who Knows]

I have interpreted it as they did.

CFR please.

You have said I didn't understand what they meant. You made the claim first. You prove what their interpretation was. Rollo tried, but he missed the target.

Code: Select all

I can't back up my claim

[_charity]

But we all know what BRM meant by "principal": "dominant blood lineage."

What did "blood lineage" mean in 1979 or whenever the introduction was written? I think your interpretation of that phrase as percentage of DNA is not what Elder McConkie meant.

Dominant, most important, Abraham covenant.

Huh? Dominant=most important? Under your interpretation, BRM's use of "dominant blood lineage" means the most minor contribution to one's ancestry. Just keep digging the hole deeper, charity.

I continue to be astounded that people simply do not understand the concepts of genealogy and ancestry. Let me explain it for you yet again.

1. All people who appear on ones pedigree lines, are equally important in that the slot has to be filled by someone. You don't get here by having only one biological parent. It takes two (however, that may be accomplished these days!). The same way you need two grandmothers and two grandfathers. One grandfather can't do it by himself.

2. You don't have DNA from each and every person who is on your pedigree chart. You have millions of people there. It would be absurd to think that each and every person back 20-30 generations or more is represented in your DNA.

3. In biological terms some genes are dominant, and thus "more important." Blue eyes. Hemophilia. Bone size.

4. In terms of the Gospel, some genes are very important. Being of a particular lineage which brings certain blessings with it. Such as the Abrahamic covenant.

Now, put that together and you will see what this is all about. But it you don't understand any one piece, you will still be clueless.