My Links

Bloggernacle Links

  • Mormon Archipelago
  • Mormon Blogs
  • LDSelect
  • LDS Blogs

Article Categories

Post Categories

Archives

Other LDS Blogs

Our Individual Blogs

Change in Book of Mormon Intro

By: Belladonna

Apparently there has been a wording change in the Introduction to the Book of Mormon.  The current change appears in the version of the scriptures that is published by Doubleday.  According to LDS Spokesman Mark Tuttle, the same change will be made in the next edition of LDS printed books as well.  Although, as of today the old wording still stands in the online version at the church website.

  According to the report from KSL.com:

From Joseph Smith to the present, church leaders have told followers that Native Americans and indigenous peoples of Central and South America are descendants of the Lamanites.

In 1981, an introduction was added to the Book of Mormon that included the phrase: "... all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians."

New editions from Doubleday now read: "... and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians."

The same story was also covered in the Salt Lake Tribune.

Why should I care about this?

According to these reports, the change in wording was done to portray the scripture account more consistently with findings from modern DNA testing.  Some people I know argue that "if your prophets were truly inspired they would have gotten the words right the first time.  This just proves that your church is not real."

Frankly, I don't buy that.  This is not the first time words have shifted in the scriptures.  Nevertheless, my surety of this book remains rock solid.

What I KNOW to be true is that Jesus Christ atoned for MY sins and that He taught His ministry in various parts of the world.  He taught the Jewish people in the Holy Land during His mortal life.  He taught a group of people somewhere in the Americas after His resurrection.  He may or may not have taught other groups.   Exactly who those people were and how they may or may not be related to current populations does not affect my testimony one way or the other.  I do not base my testimony of the Book of Mormon on how well it does or does not fit with archaeological history , studies in genetics or other worldly findings.  I believe in the Book of Mormon as the revealed word of God based on the witness I have received from the Holy Ghost that it is true.   I know the power of influence the book has had on my life and I would have far less peace without it.

Although I don't look to worldly evidence for proof of the book, I remain intrigued by the archeology of South and Central America.  In a couple weeks I will be headed to the Tulum ruins in Mexico.  I'm looking forward to seeing this land of Mayan culture and pondering the relationship those people may or may not have had with the Nephite/Lamanite people.

Much has been written elsewhere about whether or not current findings in archeology give evidence or contradiction to the Book of Mormon.

I've had some active LDS people suggest it is dangerous to even consider much of those arguments, out of fear it could shake my testimony.  That baffles me.   While I concede it is unwise to immerse myself in direct anti-Mormon literature, I do NOT see how gaining an understanding of scientific findings and various interpretations of those findings is going to be threatening to my spirituality. 

I believe my faith is STRENGTHENED when I am willing to study things out in my mind and then prayerfully go to the Lord for confirmation concerning what to believe.  I would be very wary of any belief system that I had so little confidence in that I had to swallow it whole while remaining blindfolded to alternate ways of thinking.

What's your take on this stuff?

 

Print | posted on Saturday, November 10, 2007 7:27 PM | Filed Under [ Belladonna ]

Comments:

#1: Ray

People were wrong in their assumptions about a non-Gospel aspect of the Book of Mormon. That's pretty much it for me, especially since the basic limited geography argument has been around for a long time - long before any DNA research started. Those who claim it was manufactured in response to that testing simply don't know the long history of the argument. (BTW, "principal" also can mean "most important or influential," so I really didn't have a problem with the way it was - except how it was widely interpreted to mean a primary genetic lineage.)

Having said that, I do think the change is a great thing, since I think it reflects the actual book better. I always have been bothered by how many members claim things about the Book of Mormon that it simply doesn't say in the book itself. I also think it shows that the Book of Mormon is much more complex than most people assume - that there is much to learn as we continue to study it. That really excites me.
11/10/2007 7:43 PM

#2: The Baron

I've always been among those who thought that the distances (and travel times without motorized vehicles) mentioned in the BOM have always been out-of-sorts with the idea that the BOM people covered both continents, and that the 'limited geography' idea was just common sense.

Judging the Book of Mormon based on word changes still leaves the problem of suggesting an alternate explanation for how the Book of Mormon exists at all (if you reject the 'official' explanation). Criticisms are many, but alternate theories that match the evidence the book provides and pass the laugh test are few and far between.
11/11/2007 6:54 AM

#3: Tess Prior

I'm all for the minor change. In Joseph Smith's introduction to the Book of Mormon he writes something along the lines of "if there is any error it is by human fault." So, yeah. We're not perfect. Elder McConkie's intro was extremely well written, but I agree with Ray in that this change helps highlight the complexity of the history contained in the Book of Mormon.

The thing I found most interesting about the change was the fact that the church chose to leave the author of the change anonymous. Any ideas as to why they'd do this?

Glad you posted on this topic, Belladonna. (I had read about it and wondered what the general reaction would be.) Be sure to tell us about your trip when you get back...
11/11/2007 7:48 AM

#4: Stady Canton

If an editor implements a change to a text, I don't know that she would receive credit for that wording either. I didn't know it was Brother McConkie who authored that introduction in the first place--I assumed it was writing by group/committee.
11/11/2007 1:18 PM

#5: Tristi Pinkston

You know, I never even thought about that wording and that it needed to be changed. I've had some friends comment that they're glad the change is being made, and I don't know whether I'm just an ignoramus or what, but I never noticed a problem with it. But if they've had enough bruhaha over it, I'm glad they're doing it. Whatever it takes to help people to understand.
11/11/2007 1:50 PM

#6: Mark Hansen

Not a big deal to me, either. This is not part of revealed scripture. And, in fact, the notion that all of the native americans were descended from the lamanites was an assumption on our collective parts from the beginning. We have no record of what happened between the big battle and the discovery of the plates. We've always assumed that the hill that, in modern day, we've all dubbed "Cumorah" is the same location as the final battle. Do we know that for a fact?

MRKH

11/11/2007 9:33 PM

#7: Ray

Mark, it is highly suspect. The record simply doesn't support it, imo.

I have no problem believing that Moroni "christened" the hill where he buried the plates after the scene of the final battle - either when he buried the plates or when he was speaking with Joseph. It would be much like someone "finding their own sacred grove" or "ascending their own Sinai" or "going through their own Gethsemane" or anything else like unto it. I also have no problem believing that it was nothing more than symbolic - much like I view the relocation of the Garden of Eden to Missouri - as a powerful metaphor that centers ancient events in a new place and time. It's a very common and effective mythological construct that I think is inspired.
11/14/2007 9:14 AM

#8: Belladonna

To both Mark & Ray -

You guys are getting to the heart of why this topic interested me in the first place: How do we sort out what is revealed TRUTH and what is commono speculation?

There are some things that simply are not relevant to my personal salvation, so I guess I'll just hang out with my curiousity until the second coming and get my answers then.

(Do resurrected beings have a belly button? Were there other people we don't have records for that Adam & Eve's kids married or did the whole human race propogate from brother/sister unions? What really happened to Lot's wife?...just can't get the Monty Python image out of my head!)

But there are OTHER issues that while not very clear or specific in the scriptures that we have at this point really do matter to me as I try to sort out what I do or don't believe....
11/15/2007 11:54 PM

Post Comment:

Name  
Email
Url
Comment   

Powered by: