Book of Mormon Intro - "Principal Ancestors" wording changed

[_Runtu]

It takes the word "principal" out of the statement. I don't know why the decision was made, but if it was me, I would have made it because perseverating anti's keep jumping on it because they are constitutionally incapable of understanding what the word means.

I would imagine the more likely explanation is that the wording was not defensible any longer, so they took it out. I doubt very much that they said, "Oh, crap, those evil antis are going to keep beating us up if we don't clarify." More likely, church members have asked about this issue, and the Brethren decided to make a change.

[_harmony]

So much ignorance, so little time. *sigh*

1. Abrahamic covenant: ". ..he [Abraham] entered into celestial marriage (which is the covenant of exaltation), gaining assurance that he would have eternal increase; finally, he received a promise that all of these blessings would be offeed to all of his mortal posterity." Mormon Doctrine (1979) p. 13

2. Patriarchal blessings: "Patriarch blessings contemplate an inspired declaration of the lineage of the recipient, and aslo when so moved upon the theSpirit, a inspired and prophetic statement about the life mission of the recipient." MD (1979)p. 558

3. Abraham himself: You can say myth if you want. Prove it.

Mormon Doctrine is not doctrine. You honestly think using it to support a doctrinal discussion is going to work? Doctrinal discussions require doctrinal sources. And the only source of doctrine in the LDS church is the canon. All manuals, talks, and even the prophets' words have to relate to the canon. So relate your argument to the canon, and not to a book full of wishful foundationless thinking.

And if you have some support for the idea that Abraham was a real person, I'd love to see it. Some archeological mention of him, some official mention of an itinerant sheepherder in an ancient document... anything that shows he was a real person. Because otherwise, Guy's right... Abraham is a myth.

[_harmony]

I would imagine the more likely explanation is that the wording was not defensible any longer, so they took it out. I doubt very much that they said, "Oh, crap, those evil antis are going to keep beating us up if we don't clarify." More likely, church members have asked about this issue, and the Brethren decided to make a change.

And good for them! It's just too bad they did it on the sly, and not universally.

[_Runtu]

I would imagine the more likely explanation is that the wording was not defensible any longer, so they took it out. I doubt very much that they said, "Oh, crap, those evil antis are going to keep beating us up if we don't clarify." More likely, church members have asked about this issue, and the Brethren decided to make a change.

And good for them! It's just too bad they did it on the sly, and not universally.

I think it's a welcome move, as well. Gives us evil antis less to gripe about. :)

[_Yoda]

12. liz posted the definitions, and finally admits that "principal" meant most important, not just numerically significant. Thanks liz. But notice in the defintion of "among" that she does not bold is this: "in the group, number of ,class of." Thus Lamanites are in the group of ancestors of America Indians." Not just happening to be standing next to. Talk about a stretch.

My point is, if this is, indeed the case....that "principal" means most important, and does not mean just numerically significant, then WHY would the wording have to be changed? It seems to me that the word, "principal", more effectively ties the Lamanites in as a significant group of ancestors of American Indians. That has always been a primary principle taught in the Book of Mormon. If, as you say, that DNA is not the primary focus, then why downplay it by replacing principal with a less significant word? Why not let it stand?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Sorry to burst your little bubble, but that is what principal ancestor always meant. That among their pedigrees , Lehi was there, and because Lehi carried the covenant promise of Abraham to these people, he was the "principal ancestor" among the millions of their ancestors.

That has always been the meaning. But becasue people are so ignorant about genealogy, they changed it to make it more understandable to the less educated (in matters of genealogy) masses.

Sorry to continue the 'bubble-bursting,' but ....

Many believe that Bruce McConkie was the driving force behind the "Introduction" page included in the Book of Mormon starting in 1981. If so, it's pretty clear how he viewed "principal ancestor." Here's what he wrote in Mormon Doctrine in the section entitled "American Indians":

When Columbus discovered America, the native inhabitants, the American Indians as they were soon to be designated, were a people of mixed blood and origin. Chiefly they were Lamanites, but such remnants of the Nephite nation as had not been destroyed had, of course, mingled with the Lamanites. Thus the Indians were Jews by nationality, their forefathers having come out from Jerusalem, from the kingdom of Judah.
...

Since the days of the Spanish conquests and colonizations of Mexico and South America, there has been further dilution of the pure Lamanitish blood. But with it all, for the great majority of the descendants of the original inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere, the dominant blood lineage is that of Israel.
Mormon Doctrine, p. 33 (all bold mine for emphasis)

[_guy sajer]

So much ignorance, so little time. *sigh*

1. Abrahamic covenant: ". ..he [Abraham] entered into celestial marriage (which is the covenant of exaltation), gaining assurance that he would have eternal increase; finally, he received a promise that all of these blessings would be offeed to all of his mortal posterity." Mormon Doctrine (1979) p. 13

2. Patriarchal blessings: "Patriarch blessings contemplate an inspired declaration of the lineage of the recipient, and aslo when so moved upon the theSpirit, a inspired and prophetic statement about the life mission of the recipient." MD (1979)p. 558

3. Abraham himself: You can say myth if you want. Prove it.

4. Genealogical numbers: Of course, genealogical lines cross. Some king of Portugal, I forget which, had only 167 different individuals where he should have had 256. (As I recall there were also a number genetic anomalies.) Any individual who has done any degree of genealogical research knows that while there are places where lines merge, there are still very large numbers of progenitors involved. People who do not do generalogical research are generally pretty ignorant of this fact.

5. Beastie, "Those silly little ignorant people, who actually believed the Lehites moved into a previously unoccupied land."
Not silly. They just didn't read the text of the Book of Mormon very carefully.

6. Mishie: "I thought we all agreed they were definitely NOT any of the ancestors of the American Indian." Who is WE?

7. Who knows: " How does changing it to 'among' make it 'more understandable' and consistent with your definition of 'principle'?" It removes the necessity for understanding evidently the complicated concept of "principal ancestor" from the equation. The student of the book (not just the skimmer) will get it eventually.

8. cksalmon: "Now, wait just a minute, Charity. This issue has come up on FAIR/MADB and the apologetic answer was that "principal" means "most important"--not numerically largest.

I absolutely agree here.

But this change completely obliterates that apologetic line of reasoning. "Among the ancestors" doesn't mean, in any sense, "the most important ancestors."

It doesn't have to say that. To know that the person is a descendant of Abraham is the important part.

You argue that "principal ancestor" has always meant merely "among the ancestors." And then you go to argue the same apologetic line referenced above. The problem is that "principal ancestor" has completely disappeared from the DoubleDay publication. It's not there, if Scott Lloyd is to be believed. So, the proposal in the DoubleDay edition is much more modest and much less falsifiable than the proposal in the official LDS edition.

I have always said "principal ancestor" meant the most important. I will repeat again, so you won't have to misunderstand anymore, the important part is to know that Abraham is a progenitor. But this is obviously only important to those who believe in the Abrahamic covenant. To those who don't, it isn't a point worth arguing.

9. Mishmagnet said, "I've got it. When it said they were ancestors it didn't mean DNA-like ancestors but rather spiritual ancestors. Kind of like Jesus is my older brother, but we aren't related even a little bit. Kind of like we were all brothers and sisters at church but we weren't related. Just in spirit."

Wrong, you don't get it. Do you have the DNA imprint of every single one of your ancestors back 2,000 years? Like I said, people don't really understand genealogy or genetics. Take you mtDNA, for instance. It will identify one line of your family tree. The very right hand side all the way back. Your mother's mother's mother' . . . . mtDNA. What about your father's mother. or your mother's father' mother? Do you have any of their mtDNA? The answer is no. Does that mean you are not a physical desceandant of all these other women? Not at all. You are their physical descendant and not just their "spiritual" descendant. Now do you get it?


10. guy sajer said: "So, Charity, if we polled 1,000 randomly selected rank and file believers unacquainted with the DNA issues and apologetic dismissals of it (which is, probably, the large majority of members), what % do you think would interpret "principle ancestor" similarly to the erst of us ignorant types and what % would intepret it similarly to you?

I don't know. But it doesn't matter. If 90% of the population believes that the moon is made up of green cheese, it doesn't change the facts. Since when is truth up for majority vote?

The context is clear, until recently, Mormon doctrine was that the American Indian was a direct blood descendent of Father Lehi. All, or almost all of us, who served missions taught this, prophets have taught it, the rank and file have believed it, and it's only in your apologetic mind (and those of your apologists in arms) that Mormons have historically taught and believed anything else.

The Church still teaches that American Indians are direct blood descedants of Father Lehi. And yes, that recognizes that it may not be 100% of American Indians. But such a statement would mean "most." But where you get off thinking this means that to be a blood descendant requires your DNA to be Hebrew (whatever that would have been in 600 B.C.), go back and read the previous posts.

11 who knows said: "So tell me again, for us dumb people, how changing the wording to 'among' makes your theory more 'understandable'?" It takes the word "principal" out of the statement. I don't know why the decision was made, but if it was me, I would have made it because perseverating anti's keep jumping on it because they are constitutionally incapable of understanding what the word means.

12. liz posted the definitions, and finally admits that "principal" meant most important, not just numerically significant. Thanks liz. But notice in the defintion of "among" that she does not bold is this: "in the group, number of ,class of." Thus Lamanites are in the group of ancestors of America Indians." Not just happening to be standing next to. Talk about a stretch.

DANG. I just got involved in another one of those time-killer topics.

That's a lot of self delusion for a single person. Congratulations!

Tell you what, I'll prove to you that Abraham didn't exist, if you prove to me that Prester John never existed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prester_John.

As for the vote, it has nothing to do with "truth," but with what the Mormon Church and it's leaders have taught for well over 1.5 centuries, and something that you appear to deny--that American Indians are the direct descendents of Father Lehi.

Is this really the best you can do? Gotta say, I'm underwhelmed.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I just saw this on the MAD board in a thread about what constitutes 'canon'.

Scott Lloyd wrote:

I stopped off at Deseret Book on the way back to the office. There, they have the Doubleday edition of the Book of Mormon, only in a popular-priced version with smaller dimensions, about the size of a paper-back book, although still hardbound. In this newer printing, the wording in the introduction has indeed been changed from "principal ancestors" to "among the ancestors."

So we have seen a very subtle change occur, just within the last little while. As I mentioned, the Doubleday edition was prepared with the cooperation of the Church, so I'm confident this change has the approval of the Brethren.

Is this yet another example of religion bending to fit with science?

I recall that when the Doubleday printing first came out, it still said "principal ancestor" in the Introduction section. Can someone confirm whether this is still the case?

[_Runtu]

Sorry to continue the 'bubble-bursting,' but ....

Many believe that Bruce McConkie was the driving force behind the "Introduction" page included in the Book of Mormon starting in 1981.

It's not just a belief. I was told when I worked for the church (we were working on the translator's edition of the "triple combination") that McConkie headed the committee that wrote the introduction, the chapter intros, and assigned the footnotes and index, etc. For that reason, much of the wording in the Bible Dictionary and the intro is near-verbatim quoting Mormon Doctrine.

If so, it's pretty clear how he viewed "principal ancestor." Here's what he wrote in Mormon Doctrine in the section entitled "American Indians":

When Columbus discovered America, the native inhabitants, the American Indians as they were soon to be designated, were a people of mixed blood and origin. Chiefly they were Lamanites, but such remnants of the Nephite nation as had not been destroyed had, of course, mingled with the Lamanites. Thus the Indians were Jews by nationality, their forefathers having come out from Jerusalem, from the kingdom of Judah.
...

Since the days of the Spanish conquests and colonizations of Mexico and South America, there has been further dilution of the pure Lamanitish blood. But with it all, for the great majority of the descendants of the original inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere, the dominant blood lineage is that of Israel.
Mormon Doctrine, p. 33 (all bold mine for emphasis)

Yep, that's always been the traditional interpretation since the days of Joseph Smith. But they were just giving their opinions, right? Obviously, they hadn't read the text as carefully as some apologists. ;)

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Sorry to continue the 'bubble-bursting,' but ....

Many believe that Bruce McConkie was the driving force behind the "Introduction" page included in the Book of Mormon starting in 1981.

It's not just a belief. I was told when I worked for the church (we were working on the translator's edition of the "triple combination") that McConkie headed the committee that wrote the introduction, the chapter intros, and assigned the footnotes and index, etc. For that reason, much of the wording in the Bible Dictionary and the intro is near-verbatim quoting Mormon Doctrine.

If so, it's pretty clear how he viewed "principal ancestor." Here's what he wrote in Mormon Doctrine in the section entitled "American Indians":

When Columbus discovered America, the native inhabitants, the American Indians as they were soon to be designated, were a people of mixed blood and origin. Chiefly they were Lamanites, but such remnants of the Nephite nation as had not been destroyed had, of course, mingled with the Lamanites. Thus the Indians were Jews by nationality, their forefathers having come out from Jerusalem, from the kingdom of Judah.
...

Since the days of the Spanish conquests and colonizations of Mexico and South America, there has been further dilution of the pure Lamanitish blood. But with it all, for the great majority of the descendants of the original inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere, the dominant blood lineage is that of Israel.
Mormon Doctrine, p. 33 (all bold mine for emphasis)

Yep, that's always been the traditional interpretation since the days of Joseph Smith. But they were just giving their opinions, right? Obviously, they hadn't read the text as carefully as some apologists. ;)

Since it appears that BRM wrote (or approved) the Introduction, I think the argument is settled that the use of "principal ancestor" means what BRM says above: "[F]or the great majority of the descendants of the original inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere, the dominant blood lineage is that of Israel."