Book of Mormon Intro - "Principal Ancestors" wording changed

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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.

So was BRM "clueless" when he said American Indians' "dominant blood lineage is that of Israel"? Or that the American Indians found by Columbus "chiefly" were Lamanites? Or when he referred to "pure Lamanitish blood"? You truly have no clue, my dear charity.

[_Who Knows]

I continue to be astounded that people simply do not understand the concepts of genealogy and ancestry.

We understand it just fine.

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.

Thanks for your personal opinion on what the phrase 'principal ancestors' meant. However, you've failed to demonstrate if this is how the phrase was intended to be used.

On the contrary, it's been clearly demonstrated otherwise.

Repeating your opinion over and over again is fruitless, and will remain so until you put up some evidence to back it up.

[_charity]

Thanks for your personal opinion on what the phrase 'principal ancestors' meant. However, you've failed to demonstrate if this is how the phrase was intended to be used.

On the contrary, it's been clearly demonstrated otherwise.

Repeating your opinion over and over again is fruitless, and will remain so until you put up some evidence to back it up.

I have provided you with the dictionary defintion of what principal means. You say that the word doesn't mean what it means. I don't have to prove any weird strange interpretation. It is there in black and white. The words mean what they mean.

Are you lobbing for a different meaning to square with your objection? Maybe that's what you anti's should do. Make up your own dictionary so you can prove your point. Otherwise you are just blathering.

[_Who Knows]

I have provided you with the dictionary defintion of what principal means. You say that the word doesn't mean what it means. I don't have to prove any weird strange interpretation. It is there in black and white. The words mean what they mean.

Are you lobbing for a different meaning to square with your objection? Maybe that's what you anti's should do. Make up your own dictionary so you can prove your point. Otherwise you are just blathering.

There are a few different definitions. That's why context is everything.

Is someone pulling my chain here using a charity sockpuppet?

[_The Dude]

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.

Yes you do have DNA from each and every person who is on your pedigree chart. You have DNA from our common ancestor with the great apes as well, from our common ancestor with the fish, even from our common ancestor with plants.

You just don't have a mtDNA from every person. And men don't have Y chromosome DNA from every male ancestor. But you can be sure the rest of your chromosomes contain remnants of each and every person/creature in your biological pedigree.

[_Mercury]

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.

Yes you do have DNA from each and every person who is on your pedigree chart. You have DNA from our common ancestor with the great apes as well, from our common ancestor with the fish, even from our common ancestor with plants.

You just don't have a mtDNA from every person. And men don't have Y chromosome DNA from every male ancestor. But you can be sure the rest of your chromosomes contain remnants of each and every person/creature in your biological pedigree.

How dare you try to confuse us with science The Dude, Why, if a BYU bio flunkie scoffs at mainstream science then that's good enough for me!

/sarcasm

Sseriously man, you are awesome.

[_charity]

I have provided you with the dictionary defintion of what principal means. You say that the word doesn't mean what it means. I don't have to prove any weird strange interpretation. It is there in black and white. The words mean what they mean.

Are you lobbing for a different meaning to square with your objection? Maybe that's what you anti's should do. Make up your own dictionary so you can prove your point. Otherwise you are just blathering.

There are a few different definitions. That's why context is everything.

Is someone pulling my chain here using a charity sockpuppet?

Okay, I will play your little game one more time. Here are all 14 of the dictionary defintions of principal. Would you kindly pick the one you think fits the context more appropriately than the #1 defintion. I will be waiting anxiously for your answer.

1. first or highest in rank, importance, value, etc.; chief; foremost.
2. of, of the nature of, or constituting principal or capital: a principal investment.
3. Geometry. (of an axis of a conic) passing through the foci.
–noun 4. a chief or head.
5. the head or director of a school or, esp. in England, a college.
6. a person who takes a leading part in any activity, as a play; chief actor or doer.
7. the first player of a division of instruments in an orchestra (excepting the leader of the first violins).
8. something of principal or chief importance.
9. Law. a. a person who authorizes another, as an agent, to represent him or her.
b. a person directly responsible for a crime, either as an actual perpetrator or as an abettor present at its commission.
10. a person primarily liable for an obligation, in contrast with an endorser, or the like.
11. the main body of an estate, or the like, as distinguished from income.
12. Finance. a capital sum, as distinguished from interest or profit.
13. Music. a. an organ stop.
b. the subject of a fugue.
14. (in a framed structure) a member, as a truss, upon which adjacent or similar members depend for support or reinforcement.
15. each of the combatants in a duel, as distinguished from the seconds.

I am waiting.

[_Trevor]

I am waiting.

How about this. Try looking up the definition of context.

[_Who Knows]

I have provided you with the dictionary defintion of what principal means. You say that the word doesn't mean what it means. I don't have to prove any weird strange interpretation. It is there in black and white. The words mean what they mean.

Are you lobbing for a different meaning to square with your objection? Maybe that's what you anti's should do. Make up your own dictionary so you can prove your point. Otherwise you are just blathering.

There are a few different definitions. That's why context is everything.

Is someone pulling my chain here using a charity sockpuppet?

Okay, I will play your little game one more time. Here are all 14 of the dictionary defintions of principal. Would you kindly pick the one you think fits the context more appropriately than the #1 defintion. I will be waiting anxiously for your answer.

1. first or highest in rank, importance, value, etc.; chief; foremost.
2. of, of the nature of, or constituting principal or capital: a principal investment.
3. Geometry. (of an axis of a conic) passing through the foci.
–noun 4. a chief or head.
5. the head or director of a school or, esp. in England, a college.
6. a person who takes a leading part in any activity, as a play; chief actor or doer.
7. the first player of a division of instruments in an orchestra (excepting the leader of the first violins).
8. something of principal or chief importance.
9. Law. a. a person who authorizes another, as an agent, to represent him or her.
b. a person directly responsible for a crime, either as an actual perpetrator or as an abettor present at its commission.
10. a person primarily liable for an obligation, in contrast with an endorser, or the like.
11. the main body of an estate, or the like, as distinguished from income.
12. Finance. a capital sum, as distinguished from interest or profit.
13. Music. a. an organ stop.
b. the subject of a fugue.
14. (in a framed structure) a member, as a truss, upon which adjacent or similar members depend for support or reinforcement.
15. each of the combatants in a duel, as distinguished from the seconds.

I am waiting.

lol. The first one? "first or highest in rank, importance, value, etc.; chief; foremost."

Of course, there's a lot to play around with just with that. Again, that's why context is so important. What did the person who wrote it have to say about it? What have been the past teachings regarding this? What have other prophets said about this? etc., etc.

And then, getting back to your original answer, how does changing the wording to 'among' help us better understand your definition?

[_karl61]

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.

Charity: did you really think first before you wrote that or did you just shoot from the hip.