Scans of old/new Book of Mormon introductions confirms the change!

[_Polygamy Porter]

Well, this is the quote I am referring to. Note it does not specifically reference the "Introduction," but as it was introduced in the same project of which Elder M. is referring to, I consider it as part and parcel:

“As for the "Joseph Smith Translation items, the chapter headings, Topical Guide, Bible Dictionary, footnotes, the Gazeteer, and the maps. None of these are perfect; they do not of themselves determine doctrine; there have been and undoubtedly now are mistakes in them. Cross-references, for instance, do not establish and never were intended to prove that parallel passages so much as pertain to the same subject. They are aids and helps only." Elder McConkie, Sermons and Writings of Bruce R. McConkie, 289-90

So now we must discern what McCrockie spouted off?

So the above counsel is divine, but his Mormon Doctrine is not?

How does one discern what these old men say?

[_Mister Scratch]

Well, this is the quote I am referring to. Note it does not specifically reference the "Introduction," but as it was introduced in the same project of which Elder M. is referring to, I consider it as part and parcel:

“As for the "Joseph Smith Translation items, the chapter headings, Topical Guide, Bible Dictionary, footnotes, the Gazeteer, and the maps. None of these are perfect; they do not of themselves determine doctrine; there have been and undoubtedly now are mistakes in them. Cross-references, for instance, do not establish and never were intended to prove that parallel passages so much as pertain to the same subject. They are aids and helps only." Elder McConkie, Sermons and Writings of Bruce R. McConkie, 289-90

(emphasis added)

Yep, I sure do notice that! Nice try, LoP, but now I will know to take your assertions with a grain---or shakeful---of salt.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Well, this is the quote I am referring to. Note it does not specifically reference the "Introduction," but as it was introduced in the same project of which Elder M. is referring to, I consider it as part and parcel:

“As for the "Joseph Smith Translation items, the chapter headings, Topical Guide, Bible Dictionary, footnotes, the Gazeteer, and the maps. None of these are perfect; they do not of themselves determine doctrine; there have been and undoubtedly now are mistakes in them. Cross-references, for instance, do not establish and never were intended to prove that parallel passages so much as pertain to the same subject. They are aids and helps only." Elder McConkie, Sermons and Writings of Bruce R. McConkie, 289-90

So now we must discern what McCrockie spouted off?

So the above counsel is divine, but his Mormon Doctrine is not?

How does one discern what these old men say?

As for Mormon Doctrine, BRM always affirmed it contained his own opinions on said doctrine.

Well, this is the quote I am referring to. Note it does not specifically reference the "Introduction," but as it was introduced in the same project of which Elder M. is referring to, I consider it as part and parcel:

“As for the "Joseph Smith Translation items, the chapter headings, Topical Guide, Bible Dictionary, footnotes, the Gazeteer, and the maps. None of these are perfect; they do not of themselves determine doctrine; there have been and undoubtedly now are mistakes in them. Cross-references, for instance, do not establish and never were intended to prove that parallel passages so much as pertain to the same subject. They are aids and helps only." Elder McConkie, Sermons and Writings of Bruce R. McConkie, 289-90

(emphasis added)

Yep, I sure do notice that! Nice try, LoP, but now I will know to take your assertions with a grain---or shakeful---of salt.

I would have figured you usually took what people say with a grain of salt, though. Again, as the intro was part and parcel with all the other items he mentioned, and especially because the Introduction itself speaks of the Book of Mormon as something separate from it, I have not viewed it as canonical.